




■ 

B 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

©^,Sl.lqa|nB^la 

Shelf.im. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



/ 

THE PROBLEM SOLVED; 

OR, 

THE SECOND MM AND HIS WORK: 



Being a Review of the " Second Blessing » Theory 
of Sanctification, and of Its Reviewers. 



BY G. H. HAYES, D.D., 

Author of "Children in, Christ." 



11 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (St. Paul.) 



A8| 



Nashville, Tenn. : , 

Publishing House of the M. E. Church, South. J Q Q2~ *^ 

T£ X TtT>T?TP &T ,QvrTT<XT A m?XTT<G ' 



I 



Barbee & Smith, Agents. 
1892. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1892, 

By the Book Agents op the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



The Library 
of Congress 

WASHINGTON 



PREFACE. 



The author of the " Problem of Methodism " says in his " Pref- 
ace:" "The conclusions which we have adopted are the most 
reasonable and scriptural solution of the difficult problem in- 
volved." Of course he means, to his own mind and with the 
amount of light he has received; for he says, " If we are in error, 
we are ready to receive new light," and that " we are ready to 
adopt any theory of the divine life which is more reasonable 
and scriptural than the one we have adopted." Certainly there 
is no theory more "reasonable and scriptural" than the most 
" reasonable and scriptural," and the last statement is a confes- 
sion of doubt as to the truth of the first. 

Whether the light emitted in this effort to solve " the difficult 
problem involved " will enable him and others to see a " more 
reasonable and scriptural " theory of the divine life " is yet to 
be determined. If, however, the writer did not hope to accom- 
plish something in that direction, this contribution to the litera- 
ture of the Church would not be made. If, in the arguments it 
contains, the premises are false or the conclusions erroneous, he 
sincerely hopes that the fact will be clearly demonstrated by 
some kind and competent lover of the truth, and that no reader 
will be damaged by this writer's misguided zeal for the glory of 
God and the good of his Church. For, whatever may be the 
results, he is certainly conscious of no motive impelling to the 
publication of this volume, except the hope of contributing to a 
better understanding of the word of God and the consequent 
bettering of those who love and study it. 

If this attempt to solve the "problem of Methodism" should 
prove satisfactory to the reader, and be the means of bringing 
together, into closer fellowship, the seemingly divided member- 
ship of our loved Church, and of accelerating the spread of scrip- 
tural holiness over these lands, then will have been accomplished 
the heart's desire and praver of the Authok. 

(3) 



CONTENTS. 

Chapter I. Page 
The Question Stated «* 7 

Chapter II. 
My Correspondent 17 

Chapter III. 
Depravity Not Sin 23 

Chapter IV. 
Purification— How Effected 33 

Chapter V. 
The " Problem of Methodism " 42 

Chapter VI. 
The " Old and the New Man " 50 

Chapter VII. 
Man's Fall and Recovery 61 

Chapter VIII. 
Mercy — Why Needed 76 

Chapter IX. 
The Ark and Its Lesson 82 

Chapter X. 
Extremes Meet 103 

Chapter XL 
Christian Perfection B 119 

Chapter XII. 
" Unmethodistic Methodism " , . . . . 133 

Chapter XIII. 
" Sanctin cation, by Rev. P>. Carradine, D.D." 143 

Chapter XIV. 

Conclusion 167 

(5) 



The Problem Solved. 



CHAPTEE I. 

The Question Stated. 

Theke is, so far as I know, perfect agreement 
among Methodists as to the fact that Christian per- 
fection is a Bible doctrine. As to what that perfec- 
tion is and how it is attained, whether instantaneous- 
ly or by growth, there is apparent difference of 
opinion. Mnch has been said and written of late on 
this subject, and with apparent intensity of conflict 
in opinion. There is, however, if I understand the 
opposing parties, agreement in that which is the es- 
sential error of those who are designated as the " res- 
idue " and "second blessing" party — viz., the eradi- 
cation of what is called "original sin." One party 
contends that in regeneration man is freed from his 
personal sins, but that original sin remains for an aft- 
er work, and that he must be convicted and repent 
of that "original sin" and exercise faith with special 
reference to its removal, when he is cleansed from all 
carnality, or inbred sin. This they call sanctification, 
holiness, the second blessing, etc. 

The other party, who find a representative and de- 
fender in the "Problem of Methodism, "^oppose the 
" residue " theory, and contend that in regeneration 

G) 



THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

man is cleansed not only from his personal and act- 
ual sins, but also from "inbred" or "original sin." 
(See "Problem of Methodism," pp. 125-128.) Now 
if it should turn out that in that about which they 
are agreed both are mistaken, are in error, to what 
will their controversy over their difference amount? 
Absolutely nothing. If the thing is never done at 
all in this life, of course their dispute about the when 
and how it is done is a waste of time and energy. 

This depravity question is a troublesome one, as is 
also the thing itself, depravity. It is indeed a root 
of bitterness. It is, to change the figure, a stream 
which, as it flows, divides into many branches of suf- 
fering, sorrow, and disappointment, and always and 
everywhere ends in death. Its source is sin. It ris- 
es in the mount of transgression, flows through the 
valley of disobedience, and empties into the gulf of 
destruction. Depravity is a difficult problem to 
solve. It is experienced by all; understood by none. 
There are some things about it, however, that we may 
and ought to know. We may not be able to tell— 
may not know — just what it is, but we may, it seems 
to me, know what it is not — entailed depravity, I 
mean. 

There are some truths too plain for argument; 
they are self-evident. They do not admit of proof, 
except what is found in the bare, simple statement of 
them; neither can they be disproved. Such are the 
facts that entailed depravity is not sin, in the sense 
of guilt as attaching to the subject of it, and that a 
man cannot repent of and find forgiveness for that of 
which he is not guilty. Also that personal sin that 
is necessitated by entailed depravity is not guiltiness 



THE QUESTION STATED. 9 

to the heir and instrument of it. Guilt attaches to 
the agent, never to the mere instrument of wrong. It 
is, I doubt not, because of these self-evident facts that 
some are disposed to discard entirely the idea of en- 
tailed depravity. They are nnable to separate in 
their minds the idea of depravity from that of guilt. 
They can see but one meaning to the word sin, and 
seem not to distinguish between moral nature and 
moral character. Moral nature is necessary to moral 
character, and has of necessity a prior existence. 
Moral corruption, or depravity, as applied to the na- 
ture of a moral being, cannot therefore mean the 
same as when applied to the character of such a be- 
ing. This is true even when predicated of the result 
of personal moral guilt; but it is not then so impor- 
tant to observe the distinction, because the person so 
corrupted or depraved is himself responsible for the 
corruption of his nature, and is justly punishable for 
it. He is not, however, punished, nor in justice pun- 
ishable, for being dejjraved, but only for that which 
caused his depravity — for his sins, his personal trans- 
gressions of the moral law. 

Depravity is the result of sin, but is not punisha- 
ble. To him who commits the sin and is the subject 
of the resulting depravity, it rather comes as, in part> 
the punishment of the sinner. In this sense, and to 
this extent, it carries with it its own punishment of 
the sinner, and is thus, in the gracious and merciful 
providence of God, compelled to lift its voice at every 
step with ever increasing volume in earnest warning 
to every dying immortal against the first step in the 
paths of the destroyer. Personal guilt is impossible 
where there is no personal act in the violation of law. 



10 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

Ill other words, sin, in the active and guilty sense of 
the word, cannot attach to one who has not himself 
violated the law, the transgression of which is sin. 
When, therefore, sin is predicated of anything else 
than one's personal act, the word " sin " is used in a 
different sense from that of guiltiness, or the charge 
is gratuitous and false. 

As guilt and consequent condemnation and punish- 
ment cannot be entailed— that is, transmitted to pos- 
terity—it is difficult — not to say impossible — to see 
how any unfitness for heaven can be entailed, except 
that which is necessary to and inseparable from a 
mortal state of probation. I know it is thought by 
many, and often taught, that infants, being depraved, 
are unfitted for heaven, and must, if they die in in- 
fancy, be regenerated and fitted for their heavenly 
home; that this will be done if they die; but that, if 
they live and develop into personally responsible be- 
ings their regeneration will be conditioned upon their 
repentance and faith, even though they do not per- 
sonally sin! That there is not a word in the Bible 
to justify such a belief is sufficient reason for not ac- 
cepting it. But if the Bible not only does not teach 
it, but teaches that of which it is contradictory, it be- 
comes our duty to antagonize it, and to drive it away 
as an ''erroneous and strange doctrine." Let us see 
if this latter is not the true state of the case. It is 
certainly taught that God is no respecter of persons, 
and I presume that it will not be denied that infants 
are persons. Now if there be that in infants, as an 
entailment from Adam, which unfits them for heaven, 
and which will not be taken away unless they die in 
infancy, and having which when they come to years 



THE QUESTION STATED. 11 

of personal accountability renders them more liable 
to sin, and which is taken out of the converted adult — 
either at the time of his conversion or, as a "second 
blessing," at some subsequent time — is not God par- 
tial and a respecter of persons? Does not such a 
theory, by logical necessity, make God put a premium 
upon personal sin? 

The possibility of sin — the power to sin — inheres 
in the very nature of a moral agent. We cannot con- 
ceive of such an agent without it. But if there be 
such a thing as depravity attaching to a moral being 
— whether as an inheritance or as the result of per- 
sonal sin — the depraved person is certainly more lia- 
ble to sin than he would be without it. If this w T ere 
not true, there would be no reason for nor justice in 
the redemption of man through the sacrificial death 
of Jesus Christ. If there had been no involvement of 
his descendants in Adam's sin, recovery through the 
atoning sacrifice of the Son of Man would have been 
not only unnecessary, but impossible. If, as man's 
Redeemer, Jesus Christ did not provide for the un- 
conditional recovery of every one from the necessary 
effects of Adam's sin upon his descendants — that is, 
the effect for which they are in no way and in no 
degree personally responsible — then the provision is 
incomplete, and he is an imperfect and incomplete 
Saviour, which is equivalent to saying he is no Sav- 
iour at all. If such provision was made, then it is 
only for personal sins — that is, sins committed by the 
individual himself — that anything can be required 
as a condition of pardon, or of the individual in order 
to fitness for heaven. 

Provision being made, where there are no condi- 



12 THE PK0BLEM SOLVED. 

tions to be complied with or where the conditions 
have all been met, it cannot be supposed that God 
either does or can fail or refuse to give the necessary 
fitness for the home which he has prepared for the re- 
deemed. To one who has personally sinned pardon 
can be offered, or given, only on condition of personal 
repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. If there is any unfitness for heaven in the 
pardoned sinner, it is found in the defilement conse- 
quent upon sin, and from this defilement he must be 
cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, which only can 
cleanse from sin, and which cleanseth from all sin. 
This cleansing* of course, is also conditioned upon faith 
— the same repentance and faith that were necessary 
to the pardon — for the simple reason that one cannot 
be cleansed while he continues to wallow in filth; 
but the cleansing thus conditioned can only be from 
that defilement which is the result of the personal 
sins, for which pardon was sought and found. If 
there was any defilement in or attaching to the indi- 
vidual prior to his committing personal sin, it must 
have been entailed — that which was consequent upon 
Adam's sin; and if there, it was there either because 
God could not, consistently with his own nature and 
the best interest of his creature, the subject of this 
entailment, remove it, or because he ivould not. The 
latter is an inconceivable hypothesis, and we must 
accept the first: that he could not. If he could not, it 
was either because his action was barred by some act of 
the defiled person, as a moral agent, or by something 
inherent in and inseparable from his nature as a mortal 
and moral being. It could not be the first, for we are 
speaking of one who has done no wrong, and such an 



THE QUESTION STATED. 13 

act would itself be sin, and the actor would be per- 
sonally guilty; whereas we have assumed that the de- 
filement was entailed, that it was inherited, and that, 
of course, the defiled person is in no way responsible 
for it. It must, therefore, be the last — that is, some- 
thing inseparable from the nature of a moral being 
in a state of mortal probation; and if so, of course it 
cannot be removed, either before or after the commis- 
sion of actual personal sin, until this mortal shall put 
on immorality. 

But supposing such a thing possible — the eradica- 
tion of entailed depravity in this life — what reason 
can any one give for its removal from one who has, in 
addition to the entailment, incurred personal guilt 
and not from the innocent and unoffending — the in- 
fant? Has God conditioned the removal of original 
sin (depravity) upon the commission of actual, per- 
sonal sin? If so, has he not put a premium upon 
sin, in the active sense of the word, and, by so doing, 
become himself the tempter of man to evil? But 
" God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempt eth 
he any man." If he has not made personal sin the 
condition necessary to the removal of original sin 
(depravity), then it follows either that it is removed 
from infants — all infants — and therefore from the 
world, or that he does not remove it at all in this life. 
If removed from infants, of course it has never exist- 
ed in adults, since Adam; for it cannot be entailed 
the second time, as to do so would imply the impossi- 
bility suggested by Nicodemus when he asked: "How 
can a man be born when he is old? " 

But let it be supposed that original sin (depravity) 
is eradicated in sanetification— or in regeneration, it 



14 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

matters not which — what then? . Can a man entail 
what he has not? Can parents from whom all de- 
pravity has been eradicated entail depravity upon 
their children? Impossible. If either theory be 
true, original or inbred sin — that is, depravity en- 
tailed from Adam — can descend no farther than to 
} the first converted or sanctified pair along that line. 
How it would be if only one *of the parents were sanc- 
tified it is difficult to tell. The children, I presume, 
would be a sort of hybrid. 

Mr. Wesley disposes of the objection here raised in 
a very brief but illogical manner; yet, no doubt, satis- 
factorily to himself and many of his readers. Re- 
membering that, however w^ise and good, he was not 
infallible, let us, without prejudice and in the love of 
truth, examine his reply to the objection: "But if two 
perfect Christians had children, how could they be born 
in sin, since there was none in the parents? It is a 
possible, but not a probable case. I doubt whether 
it ever was or ever will be." According to my read- 
ing of the Bible, barrenness is not a fruit of righteous- 
ness, but of sin. But it is strongly implied in this 
quotation that to obey the command, "Be ye holy!" 
we must cease to observe the injunction, "Multiply 
and replenish the earth" — that it is wicked to bear 
children, to propagate the species! 

This is very unlike Mr. Wesley, and serves to show 
the extremes to which good and great men may be 
led in defense of a preconceived theory. Hear him 
further: "But waiving this, I answer: Sin is entailed 
upon me, not by immediate generation, but by my 
first parent. 'In Adam all died: by the disobedience 
of one all were made sinners;' all men, without ex- 



THE QUESTION STATED, 15 

ception, who were in his loins when he ate the forbid- 
den fruit." This is no better. Nay, it is worse. It 
is a misappropriation, and, thereby, a perversion of 
the Scriptures (not intentionally, of course) to sup- 
port an illogical and absurd position. How can any- 
thing be "entailed upon me" "by my first parents" 
except by immediate generation and through my last 
parents? Can anybody tell? Can any even imagine? 
As to the Scripture quoted, when the apostle says, 
"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive," he is speaking of physical death and the 
resurrection of the body. He nowhere says that 
" by the disobedience of one, all men were made sin- 
ners;" but he does say: "As by the offense of one, 
judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even 
so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came 
upon all men unto justification of life." More liter- 
ally: "As through one offense condemnation came 
upon all men: even so through one righteousness jus- 
tification of life came upon all men." That is, what- 
ever of condemnation came upon man — the whole 
human family — as the result of Adam's sin, was re- 
moved in Jesus Christ, whose obedience unto death 
was for all men, and unconditionally. 

Continuing, Mr. Wesley says: " We have a remark- 
able case of this in gardening: Grafts on a crab stalk 
bear excellent fruit; but sow the kernels of this fruit, 
and what will be the result? They produce as mere 
crabs as ever were eaten." The illustration is as un- 
fortunate as the position it is intended to support is 
illogical. If the analogy holds good, the sinner that 
is grafted into the true vine (Christ) will not bear 
fruit unto holiness, but of unrighteousness unto death ; 



16 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

but his children (seed) will bring forth fruit unto 
holiness and inherit eternal life, reverting to the na- 
ture of the stalk (Christ) on which the sinner was 
grafted ! 

Another difficulty (and it has already been suggest- 
ed) is that to remove entailed depravity is to place 
man where Adam was before he sinned, in relation 
to the law of death, and render the sanctified One im- 
mortal, physically, in this life. It would be to ex- 
empt him from physical death until he should forfeit 
his sanctification by sin. This result is logically in- 
evitable, unless it be shown that the apostle Paul is 
mistaken when he says: "As by one man sin entered 
into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed 
upon all men, for that all have sinned;" "for since 
by man came death, by man came also the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive." It is here taught 
not only that death to man is the result of sin, but 
that death to all men is the result of the same sin, 
Adam's sin. It is true that man by personal trans- 
gressions may shorten his life; that "bloody and de- 
ceitful men shall not live out half their days;" but it 
is also true that infants die who have never sinned 
personally at all. But all die, according to the apos- 
tle, because all have sinned. They must therefore 
have sinned in Adam. "As in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive" — that is, as all die 
as the result of Adam's sin, even so all shall be raised 
from the dead as the result of Christ's resurrection, 
his triumph over death. 



CHAPTEE IL 
My Correspondent. 

About a year and a half ago, in private correspond- 
ence with a worthy piid much loved brother, I wrote 
a letter which, though it contains some things already 
said, I will here submit to the reader: 

"Dear Brother: I am, if possible, more than ever 
convinced that much of the seeming difference of 
opinion among us is due to the different senses in 
which the same word is often (and correctly) used. 
You object to the idea expressed in the words ' they 
are corrupt in nature/ 'depravity of nature,' or 'de- 
praved nature;' and say: £ A nature cannot be cor- 
rupted; vegetables may rot, but not vegetable nature,' 
etc. In the sense you use the words I doubt not you 
are correct; but let us not forget that words have dif- 
ferent meanings, and shades of meanings, according 
as they stand related to other words. In 'depravity 
of nature,' the word 'depravity ' must be understood 
to express only that in nature which renders it liable or 
more liable to corruption in the individuals possessing 
that nature. The possibility of sin inheres by neces- 
sity in the very nature of a dependent moral being. 
Buf, in addition to this possibility, there may be a 
bias, or tendency, which renders the liability to sin 
greater in him who possesses it than if he possessed 
only the poiver which renders sin a possibility. To say 
that it makes sin a necessity would be to say that it 
2 (17) 



18 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

makes sin impossible ; for that which cannot be avoided 
cannot be sin. This is what I mean, and what I under- 
stand Methodism to mean, by the word * depravity,' 
as applied to the nature of man; and this is what we 
call 'original sin,' naming the effect for that which 
caused it. In this sense, I take it, Paul frequently 
uses the word 'sin.' Instance: 'Now then it is no 
more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.' 
(Eom. vii. 17.) In this passage and its context Paul 
uses the word 'sin' as expressive of a tendency not 
to commit sin for sin's sake, but to that which, if 
willingly done, would be sin. 

"That such infirmity attaches to human nature as 
the result of Adam's transgression is, it seems to me, 
a self-evident proposition, if we accept the atonement 
as a fact, and the resurrection as a fruit to man of the 
same, a pledge and first fruit of which we have in the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If death, 
physical and temporal, is not a result to man of 
Adam's transgression, the resurrection caimot be a 
fruit of redeeming love — cannot be a part and com- 
pletion of redemption, which seems to be implied 
when the apostle says : * Waiting for the adoption, to 
wit, the redemption of our body.' Nor can I see 
any force in the argument when the same apostle 
says : 'As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive.' He is here arguing the resurrection of 
the body, and the death spoken of must be the death 
of the body — physical death. Unless that death to 
descendants of Adam — the human race— results from 
some change in the physical nature of man, or in the 
environments of that nature, consequent upon Adam's 
sin, there is to me no conceivable sense in which all 



MY CORRESPONDENT. 19 

die in Adam. It is this inherent tendency to corrup- 
tion that we call depravity, or corruption in the phys- 
ical nature of man. When the apostle says, 'When 
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and 
this mortal shall have pat on immortality,' etc., he 
speaks of that state of mortality and corruptibleness 
entailed by Adam upon the race, recovery from which 
comes through Jesus Christ — the second Adam— and 
is to be completed in the resurrection. 

" Of course the possibility of death existed before 
the fall, but only as the result of sin. If man had 
not sinned, he would not, could not have died; and 
was, therefore, immortal, provided he did not sin. 
Not so since the fall. ' By one man sin entered into 
the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon 
all men, for that all have sinned.' All have not 
sinned, personally, who die. Infants, for instance, 
have not personally sinned, yet they die. They must, 
therefore, have sinned in Adam, and therefore die in 
Adam; that is, die because Adam sinned — as a conse- 
quence of his sin. All infants do not die, as infants, 
yet all are physically depraved — L e., liable to die. 
From this death, and this liability to death, they are 
recovered through the redemption which is in Christ 
Jesus, which redemption is to be consummated, com- 
pleted in the resurrection. -The physical infirmities, 
which are necessary and inseparable attendants of a 
state of mortality, are the workings of entailed de- 
pravity, the end of which will be, to all who die, ab- 
solute depravity, or physical corruption — rottenness. 

"The intellectual and moral tenant of this mortal 
tenement is not only very closely related to, but large- 
ly dependent upon it, while in a probationary state, 



20 THE PROBLEM SOLYED. 

for development of intellectual and moral character; 
and has a natural if not a necessary inclination to 
take pleasure in the gratification of its sensual appe- 
tites. When these have been vitiated and abnormal- 
ly developed — as they always are by sin when in- 
dulged in — the law by which they work, called by 
Paul, 'a law in my members,' is at war with the law 
of the mind in its intellectual recognition and con- 
sciously felt sense of duty, along the line of moral 
responsibility. It is this bias of the whole man — i. e., 
of man taken as a whole — to moral evil that we call 
depravity; and total depravity because it affects the 
whole man. The depravity is not total, but the total 
man is depraved. 

"I do not repudiate the phrase 'original sin,' but 
only the misapplication of it. To my mind it is very 
expressive and, properly understood, forbids the idea 
of guilt, as attaching to those upon whom it has been 
entailed. Guilt can attach only to the originator of 
sin, the doer of the act which is sin. Everybody un- 
derstands the word 'original ' in the phrase quoted to 
refer to the act of the original man, the first man. 
If, therefore, we recognize the self-evident proposition 
that 'guilt is a concomitant of sin,' the phrase is a 
plain denial of the idea that guilt can attach to those 
upon whom original sin had been entailed. It only 
asserts, and is intended only to assert that the effects 
of that original act have been entailed upon the de- 
scendants of the original actor. What you say of 
'holy and unholy,' as 'predicable of character' only, 
I heartily indorse, when using the word ' holy,' or 
'holiness,' in the active sense. But holiness, as ex- 
pressive of activity along the line of right in the de- 



MY CORRESPONDENT. 21 

velopment of moral character, is possible only where 
there is holiness — in the sense of wholeness — of nature 
in that which is requisite to the existence of moral 
character. In this latter sense God created man a 
holy being. It is, I apprehend, for want of discrimi- 
nation as to the different uses and meanings of words 
that men often appear to differ, when if they under- 
stood each other there would be perfect harmony. 

"You say: 'The requirement that we be bom again 
is not in consequence of sin or depravity [in the offen- 
sive sense] in the first or initial birth.' I am glad 
you here recognize the fact that there is an 'offen- 
sive ' and an inoffensive sense in which the words 
'sin' and ' depravity ' may be used. Again I must in- 
dorse what you say, and even more than you say. It 
cannot be predicated of the new birth that it is a re- 
quirement consequent upon 'sin or depravity' (in any 
sense) 'in the first or initial birth.' To do so would 
be to make a child responsible for its own birth — for 
coming into the world. It would be also to make the 
new birth — being born again — consist in the eradica- 
tion or destruction of all that was entailed upon the 
race of man as a consequence of Adam's sin, call it 
depravity, original sin, or what you please. To do 
this would be to place man, when 'born again,' just 
where Adam was before he sinned; and, unless we 
deny that the ' wages of sin is death,' that death en- 
tered the world by sin, as a result of sin, w r ould ren- 
der it impossible for a converted man to die unless he 
should sin again; thus making man physically im- 
mortal in this world. The truth is, depravity, what- 
ever you may define it to be, provided only that it be 
an entailment from Adam's sin, is an inseparable ac- 



22 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

companiroent of a state of mortal probation. ' Ye must 
be born again' is not intended to be descriptive of any 
change in its modus operandi, the analogy of which is 
to be found in the literal, physical birth which intro- 
duces us into this mortal pilgrimage; but rather of re- 
sultant relationship — child relationship — to the All 
Father. It is therefore called 'adoption.' As a ' re- 
quirement,' it applies to those only who have sinned, 
personally sinned, and is necessary to make them ' as 
little children,' who have not sinned. Depravity remains 
in both, and is that through which the 'law in our 
members' works wretchedness until, like Paul, we are 
often ready to cry out: 'O wretched man that I am, 
who shall deliver me from this body of death?' You 
say: 'Rather is it [to be born again] after the analo- 
gy of hatching an egg after it has been laid.' As ap- 
plied to infants — assuming that they must be born 
again — that may he true; but certainly not as applied 
to sinners, unless they be presumed to have crept back 
into the shell." 



CHAPTEE III. 

Depravity Not Sin. 

If it is true, as I honestly think is conclusively- 
shown in the arguments presented above, that origi- 
nal sin (depravity) is an inseparable accompaniment 
of a mortal state of probation, and is never to be 
eradicated in this life, of course the "residue" and 
"second blessing" theory of sanctification is false, 
whatever may be thought of the experience of those 
who profess and teach it. "A rose by any other 
name would smell as sweet," and I doubt not the ex- 
perience of constant communion with God, and fel- 
lowship with his Son, Jesus Christ, is as sweet to 
them who enjoy it as though the theory of "second 
blessing" were true. I do not assail, do not question 
the experience of perfect love. I would that all men 
enjoyed it. Christian perfection, I verily believe, is 
a Bible doctrine; and the idea that a man cannot by 
the grace of God live without sin in this w^orld is not 
only absurd; but, when taught and believed, destruc- 
tive of good morals and ruinous to the souls of men. 
Men cannot be induced to attempt what they really 
believe to be impossible; and if a man believes it im- 
possible to avoid sinning, he will not try to avoid it. 
If he cannot avoid it, it is not a sin; for no man is re- 
sponsible beyond his ability. If he can avoid a mor- 
ally wrong act, and does not, he sins. If he sins, and 
does not repent, he cannot obtain pardon; and if he 

(23) 



24 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

dies without pardon, he cannot enter heaven, for noth- 
ing impure can enter there. If all past sins are par- 
doned, as they are in the case of every one who "is 
born of God," the pardoned man is ready for judg- 
ment; and if he does not sin again before called into 
judgment, will assuredly be admitted into the heav- 
enly city- If these statements are not true, then my 
understanding and reason are greatly at fault. If 
they are true, then the idea that an additional bless- 
ing, conditioned upon the repentance and faith of the 
subject, a child of God, is necessary as a qualification 
for heaven cannot be true. That one who has repent- 
ed, believed, and is justified, pardoned, regenerated 
and adopted, and has the Spirit itself bearing witness 
with his spirit that he is the child of God, is also 
sanctified, there can be no doubt, unless it can be sup- 
posed that such a one has not set himself apart to the 
service of God and been accepted of him. He may 
not have been sanctified by an authorized minister of 
Christ in. and by the ordinance of Christian baptism, 
but he has certainly sanctified himself and been sanc- 
tified by the Spirit of God. If the reader doubts 
this, let him, with the help of a concordance, study the 
meaning of the word " sanctify " as used in the Script- 
ures. An unsanctified man is an unsaved man ac- 
cording to the Scriptures; and so of an unholy man. 
Do I then deny and oppose the Methodist Wesley- 
an doctrine of Christian perfection? Assuredly not. 
It is laid upon this foundation, and the builders there- 
of had never laid the first stone, had never conceived 
the idea but for the doctrine and experience of sanc- 
tification in regeneration and the witness of the Spir- 
it thereto. "The natural man receiveth not the 



DEPRAVITY NOT SIN. 25 

things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness 
unto him: neither can he know them, because they 
are spiritually discerned." The doctrine of course 
was taught in the Bible, but the spiritual eye had to 
be couched before it could be seen. Had Mr. Wesley 
never experienced the pardon of sins and the witness 
of the Spirit that he was a child of God, he would 
never have taught the doctrine of Christian perfec- 
fection. One must know what it takes to constitute 
a Christian before he can teach Christian perfection, 
and must be a Christian before he can become per- 
fect as a Christian, before he can go on to perfec- 
tion; must be holy before he can perfect holiness 
in the fear of the Lord. If a Christian is not a 
saved man, one created anew in Christ Jesus, we 
may well ask: Who then can be saved? Who 
ever heard of a man who was not spiritually mind- 
ed contending for and urging to the attainment of 
Christian perfection, unless he was a hypocrite? 
Who ever heard of one professing to have attained 
it — by whatever name he may have called it — who 
did not first profess to have been regenerated 
and received the witness of the Spirit? As well 
search for a man who is professing to have attained 
to perfect development in physical manhood, and who 
is teaching the means of its attainment, who was nev- 
er born into the world! If a man has "received the 
Spirit of adoption" and has the Spirit itself bearing 
witness with his spirit that he is a child of God, what 
more can he need to constitute him an heir? Has 
God any children who are not heirs? Not if the 
apostle Paul understood the subject: "If children, 
then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." 



26 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

O what honor is here! What a thrilling experience! 
What unutterable joy to be a child of God and to 
have the assurance from him that he owns us as such! 
Surely nothing but the forfeiture of the relation by 
personal sin can cause a single child of God to be dis- 
inherited. 

But is a man thus constituted a child of God, and 
as soon as he is born of the Spirit and has the wit- 
ness of it, perfect? Yes; and no. He is perfectly a 
child of God, and as such perfectly an heir; but he 
has not yet gone on to perfection in that perfect rela- 
tion. He is only just now ready to begin the work — 
call it growth or what you will — of developing 
"unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
of the fullness of Christ." This he must do if he 
maintain the relation. I will not say that it is im- 
possible for a child to eat just enough to sustain life 
and yet not enough to minister to its growth; but I 
hazard nothing in saying it would be a dangerous ex- 
periment, and one that few, if any, could be induced 
to make in the realm of the physical; and they w T ho 
attempt it in the spiritual are apt to die of inanition. 
If a child eats enough to sustain life, he is apt to eat 
enough to make him grow, especially if he relishes 
the food and can get it. This is true of the spiritual 
as well as of the physical man. Every newly adopted 
child of God is in a sense a babe spiritually, but they 
are not all the same size morally. A fact this which 
seems to be overlooked in the analogies sought and 
applied in the discussion of this question. There is 
really no analogy between the literal physical birth 
and what is called the new birth, being "born of the 
Spirit," except in the relation which results. Indeed, 



DEPBAVITY NOT SIN. 27 

as to the modus operandi, there is an exact reversal of 
the process. Attempts to argue from analogies sup- 
posed to exist here have been productive of the ludi- 
crous, the ridiculous, and the vulgar, but have con- 
tributed nothing to the development of truth, nor to 
the growth of God's children in the grace and knowl- 
edge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor will it do to try 
to run the analogy through childhood to mature man- 
hood w T ith the results, for here we find that the child 
from utter helplessness and absolute dependence 
grows to be self-sustaining and independent, and 
sometimes to be the support of a dependent father or 
mother. Of course in the spiritual birth the child is 
utterly helpless and dependent on the Father (God) 
for all spiritual blessings and protection, but not 
more so than he must continue to be as long as he 
abides in "the earthly house of this tabernacle." 
He can do nothing of himself, but he "can do all things 
[that are required of him] through Christ which 
strengthened" him. His sufficiency is of God from 
first to last. It is not to be supposed, however, that 
every adopted child of God starts on his Christian 
career with the same advantages and strength, as to 
his mental and moral development, and that they are 
all equally "babes." If we begin at the foundation 
and build according to the true philosophy of the 
plan of salvation, this will do. Otherwise we will 
wander in mazy darkness for material, and rear an 
unsubstantial building. If we accept the philosoph- 
ical and Biblical truth, that every infant born into this 
world is born a child of God as well as a child of man, 
we may find analogies between the two relations — to 
God and man — in the states of absolute and uncondi- 



28 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

tional dependence. If we take the case of adopted chil- 
dren, persons who have by personal transgressions 
forfeited the relation, who on complying with the pre- 
scribed condition, repentance toward God and faith 
in the Lord Jesus Christ, "have received the Spirit 
of adoption," we must begin the analogy at the point 
of mental and moral development to which the person 
has attained before conversion, as to moral charac- 
ter and manhood. 

God deals with man as an intellectual being, and 
intelligence is necessary to the perfection of Christian 
manhood. If this were not true, there would be no 
need of the revelation which he has made and given to 
man. Because it is true, he has provided for the ne- 
cessity and given in his inspired word just the kind 
of food that is adapted to the nature of an intellect- 
ual and morally responsible being in a mortal state 
of probation. The standard of perfection is present- 
eel in this word, and the model of it in the person and 
life of the Son of Man. The more a man knows of 
the truth as it is in Jesus Christ and is revealed in 
his word, if he measures up to his duty and privilege 
in practical life, the more nearly he approximates 
Christian perfection. No man can know more of the 
theory of human redemption than is revealed, unless 
we assume that the Revelation is incomplete and is 
to be supplemented to individuals. Nor can any hope 
to know in this life all that is revealed in the Script- 
ures: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, 
save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the 
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of 
God." Assuming that perfection is attained, it is 
not to be supposed that every perfect Christian has 



DEPRAVITY NOT SIN. 29 

acquired the same amount of intelligence and the 
same degree of moral development that any and every 
other has. He may be, and is if perfect at all, as ab- 
solutely perfect in moral character, relatively to his 
own intelligence in that which is necessary to it; but 
in proportion as he is, as compared with others, want- 
ing in intelligence, he is necessarily less in moral 
stature, so to speak. The moral cannot outstrip the 
intellectual in actual development, though it may in 
comparative; but the intellectual does often exceed 
the moral. If a man does the very best that he 
knows, all the while and in everything, he is perfect 
in moral, however deficient in intellectual manhood. 
But he is not therefore the equal of every other man 
who does the same thing. Saul of Tarsus was intel- 
ligent, earnest, and honest. He was learned in the 
Scriptures, but not spiritually enlightened. When 
the Spirit shone into his heart and revealed to him 
its true condition, he recognized in the Jesus whom 
he persecuted the Messiah of his own Scriptures, and 
accepted him as his personal Saviour. He now saw 
the facts and prophesies, with which he had long been 
familiar, in a new light, and was prepared to prove 
out of the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. A 
child of five years, or even less, may believe in Jesus 
and have the witness of acceptance with him, and be 
as honestly determined as was Paul to do all he can 
in his service and for his sake; but is he therefore 
equal in moral stature to the apostle? Relatively, he 
may be; but absolutely, he is not. The moral may 
be as fully up to the intellectual in the child as in the 
apostle; but if only equal in that both are measuring 
up to ability— each to his own, of course — the abso- 



30 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

lute inequality of moral stature must be in exact pro- 
portion to the difference in their intellectual develop- 
ment and native capacity, as this is the measure of 
ability and responsibility. They are both children of 
God, and, in a sense, they are both "babes" in 
Christ; but are they equally and in the same sense 
"babes," morally and spiritually? As well contend 
that a babe of a few days and a youth of sixteen or 
eighteen years, being adopted by some kind-hearted 
man, are equally and in the same sense babes, liter- 
ally, because they are at the same time adopted into the 
family and legally constituted children of their foster 
father. They are, indeed, equally his children, and, 
as expressive of their new relation, might be called 
twins; but certainly no one will contend that they are 
literally and equally babes. 

An infant is a child of God and a babe, literally 
and spiritually. It may, and ought to be nourished 
with the discipline and doctrine of the Lord, so that it 
will never forfeit the relation by sin. To deny that 
this is possible is to say that personal sin is a neces- 
sity, which is a contradiction of the thing affirmed. 
That it is hard to do, and seldom done, I do not deny. 
But if all Christian parents were what they ought to 
be, and there were no nonchristians in the world, it 
would be an easy thing to accomplish. If the intel- 
lect were properly developed and proper discipline 
enforced from the start, and there were no evil exam- 
ples set before the child, it is difficult to see how a 
failure could be made. I doubt not that very much 
of the depravity that curses the world, moral, mental, 
and physical, and that is attributed to original sin 
(Adam's sin), if the exact truth were known, would be 



DEPRAVITY NOT SIN. 31 

seen to be personally acquired or, if inherited, consid- 
erably augmented by the personal sins of ancestors 
less remote than the original pair. If children were 
dealt with touching their relation to their earthly 
parents and to other members of their natal house- 
hold as often they are with respect to their heav- 
enly Father and the household of God (the Church), 
the result would be to segregate the family and sap 
the foundation of civilized society and of republican 
government. If children from their early infancy 
were wet-nursed from home and not taught their re- 
lation to their parents and their rights and duties as 
members of the family, but rather taught that it is 
their right to choose in after years — when they attain 
to competency of judgment — whether they will ac- 
knowledge their parents and recognize and submit to 
their authority, what would be the results as to fami- 
ly government, and upon society and civil govern- 
ment? Is it to be wondered at that children grow up 
to disregard the claims of religion and become open 
and avowed sinners against God, when their right to 
membership in the visible Church — the family of God 
— is denied by many professed Christians, and the 
possibility of their retaining the favor of the heaven- 
ly Father and continuing members of his spiritual 
family practically denied by all, even by those who 
nominally recognize their rights and relationship and 
place the appointed seal of the covenant upon them ? 
This serious blunder — fatal, I fear, in many instances 
— grows out of the idea so long and almost universally 
received, that original sin (entailed depravity) unfits 
the descendants of Adam for heaven, and it is, by 
some means, to be gotten rid of in this life. The bare 



32 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

intimation that possibly the idea is neither founded 
in reason nor supported by the Scriptures is quite 
sufficient to arouse the cry of " heresy" against the 
presumptuous offender. If by these utterances I 
subject myself to the charge of heresy, I have only to 
say: Back the charge with proofs from reason and 
and Scripture or from our book of Discipline, and I 
will at once recant. Otherwise I am obliged by the 
Church, as well as by my own conviction of duty, 
to "drive away" as a " strange and erroneous doc- 
trine" the idea that entailed depravity is sin, in the 
guilty sense of the word, and is to be gotten rid of in 
this life. 



CHAPTEE IV. 

PUBIFICATION— HOW EFFECTED. 

If depravity is not sin — in the sense of guiltiness 
— (and it cannot be if entailed) then no requirement 
can be made of its subject as a condition of its remov- 
al. This is as true of adults as -of infants, for they 
are no more responsible for growing up and develop- 
ing into moral agents than for being born into the 
world. If its removal cannot be conditioned upon 
any act of obedience required of man, it cannot be a 
bar to his perfect acceptance with God and fitness for 
heaven, so far as fitness can be acquired in this life. 
If any unfitness for heaven remains in one who is ac- 
cepted of God and whose personal sins are pardoned 
— who is born of God — except that which pertains to 
the body and is to be removed in the resurrection, in 
what does it consist ? and when and how is it to be re- 
moved? We have seen that it does not consist in 
original sin, or inherited depravity. It must there- 
fore be found in some unpardoned sin or in the re- 
maining effects of sins that have been forgiven — that 
is, acquired depravity. The first it cannot be, unless 
God can be supposed to accept, renew, and adopt as 
his child one a part of whose sins he does not forgive. 
It cannot be the latter unless an effect can be greater 
than its cause; for, whether we consider the power 
required or the condition necessary to its exercise, that 
which removed the cause would be sufficient to re- 
3 (33) 



Si THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

move the effect also. Besides, the effect, while it 
might be regretted, could not be repented of; and 
that for which repentance is impossible cannot be a 
moral unfitness for heaven. If not a moral unfitness, 
it must pertain to the physical man, the body; and- if 
in the body, it cannot be removed until the resurrec- 
tion. 

Sin pardoned and its effects removed, redemp- 
tion is completed. "The wages of sin is death; but 
the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ 
our Lord." Death, "to man at least — and it is of man 
only that we speak — is an effect of sin, and we may 
say the only effect, for it embraces all its accompany- 
ing infirmities and sufferings, whether we speak of 
moral or physical death. Sin is the transgression of 
the law, and as such requires pardon in order to its 
removal. Only he of whose law it is the transgres- 
sion can pardon sin. When sin is pardoned, it is re- 
moved, in the only sense in which it can be removed, 
and completely. The effect of sin is death, and the 
removal of death is the recovery of the sinner from 
the effect of sin. As the body dies as the result of 
Adam's sin, in which his descendants took no part, it 
is to be unconditionally raised from the dead as the 
result of Christ's triumph over death, even so the 
moral man is unconditionally raised from the death 
which would have been an entailment consequent upon 
the same sin, and for the same reason and by the same 
necessity. Eternal death, which is spiritual death con- 
summated and perpetuated, can come to none but the 
personal transgressors of the law — the morally guilty 
Infants are not personally guilty, and therefore can- 
not die eternally, as infants. If eternal death is the 



PURIFICATION — HOW EFFECTED. d5 

consummation and perpetuation of a death in sin, 
they are not dead in sin. If infants are not depraved, 
there is no such thing as inherited or entailed de- 
pravity. If there is no entailed depravity, there can 
be no recovery from such entailment, and therefore 
no Redeemer, in a moral sense, of infants at all. II 
infants are depraved and not dead in sin, then de- 
pravity is not sin in the guilty sense of the word 
"sin." 

The pardon of sin and the removal of its effects 
constitute the perfect recovery of the sinner — com- 
pleted redemption. Man is a twofold being — spirit 
and body; and to both death is the effect of sin. The 
spirit is "dead in trespasses and in sins" — that is, if 
guilty of personal transgressions of the law; other- 
wise not. The Christian is "alive to God through Je- 
sus Christ" — that is, in his spirit. In one of these 
two classes every human being is found — dead or 
alive. There is no medium ground, no third class. 
Both alike are mortal, as to their physical bodies, and 
are destined to die a physical death. This death, to 
all, is the effect of the same sin, original sin. "In 
Adam all die." The restoration of the body to a life 
freed from the seeds of death, from mortality, is 
completed redemption to the body. "This corrup- 
tible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must 
put on immortality: then shall be brought to pass the 
saying that is written, Death shall be swallowed up 
in victory." 

Resurrection, then, is the only remedy for the ef- 
fects of sin, whether of spirit or body, as death is the 
only effect, comprehending in itself all its accompany- 
ing infirmities, corruptions, and sufferings. The type 



36 THE PBOBLEM SOLVED. 

of the resurrection that awaits the body, or that to 
■which, it is to be raised, is determined by the charac- 
ter of the spirit by which it is tenanted at the time of 
its death; for that same spirit is to tenant the body 
when it is "raised a spiritual body." If it dies the 
tenement of a spirit "dead in trespasses and sins," it 
will be raised fitted for the indwelling of that same 
spirit throughout the endless ages of eternity, where 
hope comes not and mercy is clean gone forever. If 
the tenanting spirit is " alive unto God through Jesus 
Christ," who is "the resurrection and the life," when 
the body dies, it -will, when raised, be fashioned like 
unto the glorious body of our risen and glorified Re- 
deemer, and the man, perfectly recovered from the ef- 
fects of sin in spirit and body, awaking in the like- 
ness of him after whose image he was originally cre- 
ated, "shall be satisfied." The others, bearing the 
likeness of their chosen father, the devil, will be 
raised to shame and everlasting contempt. 

The resurrection of the spirit takes place in this 
probationary life and is conditioned to the personally 
guilty — none others are dead in trespasses and sins— 
upon "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord 
Jesus Christ." It is made conditional because the 
death from which it delivers is the result, to those to 
whom it is conditioned, of their personal and volun- 
tary sins. To none other is a condition either neces- 
sary or possible; and where the condition is not ap- 
plicable the state (death) cannot exist, for where no 
barrier is interposed the quickening Spirit effects his 
work. Resurrection is purification, and that which is 
raised is purified. "So also is the resurrection of the 
dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incor- 



PURIFICATION — HOW EFFECTED. 37 

ruption." This, it is true, is spoken of the body; but 
it is also true of the spirit. "And you, being dead in 
your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath 
he quickened together with him, having forgiven you 
all trespasses." In pardon, or forgiveness, sin is re- 
moved, and in quickening there is recovery from 
death, which is corruption. As well expect the body 
to be raised in the final resurrection with the remains 
of mortal corruption attaching to or inhering in it as 
the spirit to be raised from the death in trespasses 
and sins with the remains of moral corruption still 
dwelling in it. Only those who die wall need to be 
raised from the dead, or can be. Only those who sin, 
personally sin, are said to be or are dead in trespass- 
es and sins, and such only are said to be quickened. 
The quickening is called "redemption through his 
blood " — the blood that cleanseth from all sin — and 
this redemption is defined to be forgiveness of sins. 
The witnessing of this redemption to our conscious- 
ness as an accomplished fact the apostle calls being 
"sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which [the 
being sealed] is the earnest of our inheritance until 
the redemption of the purchased possession," which 
in another place he calls, " the adoption — to wit, the 
redemption of the body." 

The same terms that are used to express the change 
wrought in the resurrection of the body are used to 
express the renewal of the spiritual man, which is 
called being born again, born of the Spirit; such 
as " redemption," " regeneration," " quickening," 
"raised," "adopting," "children." "In the regener- 
ation when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of 
his glory," evidently refers to the renewal in the gen- 



38 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

eral resurrection, when they who "have followed" 
Christ in this probationary life shall be raised to in- 
herit everlasting life." (Matt. xix. 28, 29.) In that 
regeneration there will certainly be no remains of 
corruption left, but salvation will be completed to the 
body as well as spirit. How about the regeneration 
that takes place in this life and the salvation which it 
effects? Is it complete or incomplete, thorough or 
partial?- It is the work of God. "According to his 
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Is any part of 
the man thus saved left unwashed? — of the Spirit, I 
mean. 

The word "quicken" is used to express the resur- 
rection of the body. "That which thou soweth is not 
quickened, except it die." "So also is the resurrec- 
tion of the dead." (1 Cor. xv. ) The connection 
shows that this quickening is recovery from all cor- 
ruption. In Romans viii. 11 the same apostle says: 
"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from 
the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from 
the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
Spirit that dwelleth in you." None will question 
that when the work expressed by the word "quick- 
en" is wrought upon the "mortal bodies" it w T ill ef- 
fect immediate and full deliverance from all mortal 
defilement, from all physical corruption. Does the 
same work, when wrought upon the spirit of man, ef- 
fect less? Is it then only a partial and incomplete 
work? If so, what does this mean: "And ye are com- 
plete in him, which is the head of all principality and 
power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- 
cumcision made without hands, in putting off the 



PURIFICATION — HOW EFFECTED. 39 

body o£ the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of 
Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye 
are risen with him through the faith of the operation 
of God, who hast raised him from the dead?" Is the 
completeness incomplete? Is the circumcision par- 
tial? Is only a part of the body of the sins of the 
flesh put off? Are we only partly buried and partly 
risen? Who will dare to affirm either of these im- 
plied propositions? It will not do to say that the 
apostle is speaking only of those who have sought and 
obtained "the second blessing," who, after they were 
justified and regenerated, were convicted of inbred 
sin, repented of it and exercised a special additional 
faith for its removal; for he immediately exhorts them 
to set their " affections on things above, not on things 
on the earth," assigning as a reason that if they were 
thus risen they were dead — to sin, of course. The 
apostle says: "He that is dead is freed from sin" — 
not from some sin, but from sin, all sin. He also 
says: "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." 
He does not mean, as some seem to think he does, 
that we cannot please God while we live in this world, 
while we dwell in these mortal bodies; for he imine- 
diately adds: " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the 
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. 
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is 
none of his." Every man — every human being — is 
either dead to sin or dead in sin. If dead to sin, he 
is alive to God through Jesus Christ, and dead to sin 
by virtue of relationship to God in Christ, who "died 
unto sin once" — and died for all. "If one died for 
all, then were all dead," having died in him. His 
death was the death of all, because he " died for all, 



40 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

that they should . . . live unto him which died 
for them, and rose again." (2 Cor. v. 14, 15.) Such 
is the statement and argument of the apostle Paul. 
The " all " applies to universal humanity and to every 
descendant of Adam; but can do so only in infancy. 
He refers, I doubt not, to the same fact when he 
says: "I was alive without the law once: but when 
the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." 
All infants are partakers of Christ's death, and are 
therefore dead to sin. If they die, physically, before 
the commandment comes to them — that is, before they 
are intellectually developed to the point of personal 
responsibility, and are capable of receiving the com- 
mandment — they are taken to heaven. If when the 
commandment comes they violate it, sin revives, and 
they die. They that do so are dead in trespasses and 
sins, and need to be quickened. This quickening is 
equivalent to the "new birth" — is the new birth. It 
is the first resurrection, in which the spirit is renewed 
after the image of God in knowledge and true holi- 
ness. Being dead, it is freed from sin. Depravity 
still remains and is augmented, to the amount of the 
personal sins that have been allowed to grow out of 
original sin and have been added thereto. This aug- 
mentation may have been going on through several 
generations; and if so, the liability to personal sin has 
been increased; but the grace of God, in every case, 
is sufficient in enablement to overcome it, or man 
would not be responsible — would not be capable of 
sin — for that which cannot be avoided is not sin, in 
the active and guilty sense of the word. The idea 
that original sin (depravity) is eradicated in this life 
is the source of much, if not all, of the strife and con- 



PURIFICATION — HOW EFFECTED. 41 

fusion that have attended the discussion of the sub- 
ject of Christian perfection, miscalled, by many, "en- 
tire sanctification." Beginning with this false, but 
long cherished idea, the difficulty has been to harmo- 
nize the Scriptures with it; and efforts to do so have 
resulted in errors at both extremes, while the dispu- 
tants who believe in the fact of entailed depravity 
agree in that which is the essential error of both par- 
ties, without seeming to know that they are agreed 
and that they are conducting a mere logomachy. 

Others, not being able to grasp the idea of entailed 
depravity, except as the necessitating cause of sin, go 
to the extreme of denying that man is in any way af- 
fected by the sin of Adam — that is, that there is any 
depravity except that which is acquired by personal 
sin. This latter is, logically, to deny that infants — 
the whole human race except the first pair — have any 
interest in the world's Redeemer until they acquire 
it by sin. For, if there be no involvement of his de- 
scendants, recovery from the effects of the original 
sin is an absurdity, and redemption is not only not 
necessary, but absolutely impossible. 



CHAPTER V. 

The "Problem of Methodism." 

Doctoe Boland says: "Now this depravity or 'in- 
fection of our nature ' creates the necessity of the new 
birth or regeneration; but, strange to say, learned 
theologians (?) and bishops (?) would have us be- 
lieve, or stultify our common sense by trying to believe, 
that this corruption of our nature remains in them 
that are regenerated!" ("Problem of Methodism," 
pp. 127, 128.) Again he says: "Now every tyro in 
theology knows that the 'standards' all teach that 
the necessity of the new birth grows out of the exist- 
ence of this ' inbred sin;' so that if the new birth does 
not remove this 'inbred sin,' this 'carnal mind,' this 
natural ' corruption of our nature,' where is the ne- 
cessity of 'being born again?'" (Pages 153., 154.) 
The logic of these quotations is unanswerable, and is 
fatal to the " residue " and " second blessing " theory; 
but, taken in connection with other utterances of his, 
it is equally fatal to his own theory. It is simply 
self-evident that, if the "necessity of the new birth 
grows out of this inbred sin," it is removed by the 
new birth; else the necessity would still remain! 
But look at this: "Now it comes to this: As Metho- 
dists, we must either give up the doctrine of 'inher- 
ited depravity/ or we must abandon the 'residue 
theory of regeneration ; ' for if depraved Adam begat 
a son in his own likeness, after his image, then the 
(42) 



THE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 43 

soul that is ' born of God,' ' of incorruptible seed/ ' of 
the Holy Spirit,' cannot be ' impure,' cannot have l in- 
Jbred sin remaining in it; but it must be 'pure,' 
'cleansed from all unrighteousness/ from all sin!'" 
( "Problem," pp 126,127.) Strange that so acute a 
reasoner should fail to see that the inevitable result 
of his own logic is that the "necessity of the new 
birth " cannot exist in the children of regenerated 
parents! and that "original sin," "inherited deprav- 
ity," stops with the first regenerated pair of Adam's 
descendants! Tea, with Adam himself, provided he 
and mother Eve were saved, were regenerated before 
they had any children! The fault is not in his logic. 
Therefore "it comes to this: As Methodists, we must 
either give up the doctrine of inherited depravity, or 
we must abandon the 'residue theory of regenera- 
tion'" — and the theory that "the necessity of the 
new birth grows out of the existence of this inbred 
sin." 

We cannot "give up the doctrine of inherited de- 
pravity " without denying the whole scheme of human 
redemption; that is, the idea that the human race fell 
in Adam and is redeemed by the sacrificial death of 
Jesus Christ — that "as in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive," and that, "as by the 
offense of one judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation; even so by the righteousness of one the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 
We mast, therefore, "abandon" the idea that "the 
necessity of the new birth [to personal sinners] 
grows out of the existence of this inbred sin." This, 
it seems to me, will not be difficult for a Methodist to 
do, if he would preserve consistency in his system of 



44 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

doctrinal theology; for if in regeneration original sin 
(depravity) is removed — as it must be, if the neces- 
sity of regeneration exists in it — to what shall we look 
for "the necessity of the new birth" to one who has 
apostatized? He cannot get back his "inherited de- 
pravity" unless he can be born again "when he is 
old," after the manner suggested by Nicodemus! He 
must need to be born again, born of the Spirit, or he 
is still a child of God and an heir, though an apostate 
and in a worse state than before he was converted! 
He cannot come to need the new birth when that out 
of which the necessity grows has no existence, for the 
good and sufficient reason that an effect cannot exist 
without a cause. The necessity of the new birth is 
found in the fact of nonchildship to God, whatever 
may cause this want of relationship. It follows there- 
fore that apostasy is impossible, or that the necessity 
of the new birth cannot be predicated of original sin. 
If inbred sin (depravity) does not furnish the ne- 
cessity of the new birth, then it must be found in 
something else; for "except a man be born again, he 
cannot see the kingdom of God," "cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God." In searching for that 
which makes the new birth a necessity the first 
thing to be settled is: To whom is it a necessity? 
Having determined this, it will then be in order to 
inquire: Why is it necessary? — that is, what is it that 
brought about the necessity? What caused it? 
Whatever caused the necessity perpetuates it, and 
will do so as long as it remains untaken away. To 
whom, then, is the new birth a necessity? If this 
question be answered correctly, it will be less difficult 
to answer the next, and to ascertain the truth after 



THE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 45 

wliich we are in search. The new birth, is necessary 
to entering the kingdom of God, and is not, therefore, 
and cannot be, necessary to those who are already in 
the kingdom, but only to those who are without. 
Every child of God is of the kingdom — that is, in the 
kingdom — of God, and constitutes a part of it. To 
such, of course, the new birth is not now necessary, 
whatever may have been, or may be at some future 
time. If the new birth is necessary to infants, who 
have never personally sinned, then they are not " of 
the kingdom of God;" for it is necessary to entering 
the kingdom and can, therefore, be necessary only to 
those who are without. But Jesus says of them, - of 
such is the kingdom;" and when the disciples asked 
him, " Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? " 
he "called a little child unto him, and set him in the 
midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except 
ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." It will not 
be questioned — by Methodists, at least — that, what- 
ever "the kingdom of heaven" here means, it is com- 
posed of infants and adults who, by conversion — the 
new birth — become " as little children." This, I pre- 
sume, is the same kingdom to enter which it is neces- 
sary to be "born again;" and if so, infants — all in- 
fants—are either not in the kingdom or they do not 
need "the new birth." They are "of the kingdom; " 
therefore they do not need to be "born again." If 
they do not need to be born again, it is either because 
they are not depraved — have no "inbred sin " — or the 
necessity of the new birth does not "grow out of the 
existence of this inbred sin." If infants are not de- 
praved, of course "inherited depravity" is a myth. 



46 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

We must, therefore, give up the theory that finds the 
"necessity of the new birth" in original sin — inherited 
depravity. 

Can a man be a Christian, a child of God, and be 
at the same time depraved? I answer unhesitatingly: 
Yes; he most certainly can, or there is no such thing 
' as a Christian in the world. There is not a man — a 
human being — in the world- who is not depraved. 
Some are more depraved than others, because they 
have added to inherited depravity a greater amount 
of their own acquiring through personal transgres- 
sions of the law. Some inherit more depravity than 
others, because, in addition to the stock of "original 
sin " which is the common inheritance of all, they 
inherit that which has been acquired by their more 
immediate progenitors. But, whether inherited or 
acquired, depravity is not sin in the active and pun- 
ishable sense of the word. Salvation from sin is not 
necessarily nor generally, if ever in this life, salva- 
tion from the effects of sin, even when the effect is 
connected with the sin from which the salvation de- 
livers, as its immediate cause. If the effect caused 
by the sin of one person is visited upon another, the 
removal of the effect cannot be conditioned upon the 
pardon of personal sins committed by him on whom 
the effect has fallen, unless it be also conditioned 
upon the commission of those personal sins. In that 
-case, sin would be the antidote of sin, and the only 
antidote! Actual, personal sin is thus made the rem- 
edy, and the only remedy, for original sin, or inher- 
ited depravity! Infants are either the children of 
God or they are the children of the devil. If the chil- 
dren of the devil, they are not "of the kingdom of 



THE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 47 

God," unless the kingdom of God is composed, in 
part, of the children of the devil. If the children of 
God, either they are not depraved, or one may be a 
child of God and at the same time be depraved. If 
infants are not depraved, there is no such thing as in- 
herited depravity. 

The truth is, and it may as well be stated in plain 
terms, inherited depravity pertains to and inheres in 
the physical man, the mortal body. It is therefore 
called the flesh; and when the spirit — the intellectual 
and moral man — is dominated by the physical and 
sensual, he is said to be "carnally minded," to "walk 
after the flesh," to be "in the flesh." "The right- 
eousness of the law" is "fulfilled "only in them "who 
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For 
they that are after the flesh do mind the things of 
the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the 
things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [to 
mind the flesh] is death ; but to be spiritually minded 
[to mind the Spirit] is life and peace. Because the 
carnal mind [the minding the flesh] is enmity against 
God: for if is not subject to the law of God, neither 
indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh 
[in subjection to the flesh] cannot please God. But 
ye are not in the flesh [obeying the flesh, walking 
after the flesh], but in the Spirit [walking after the 
Spirit], if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. 
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ [dwell- 
ing in him], he is none of his." (Kom. viii. 4-9. ) That 
the apostle is here speaking of the literal flesh — 
the mortal body — and the obedience of the mind 
(the spirit) to its sensual appetites, as opposed to 
obedience to the Spirit of God, is evidenced by the 



48 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

verses immediately following and the argument of 
the remainder of the chapter: "And if Christ be 
in you [i. e, jf "the Spirit of God dwell in you"], 
the body is dead because of sin [i. e., mortal, doomed 
to death]; but the spirit is life because of righteous- 
ness. But if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus 
from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ 
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies 
by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, breth- 
ren, we are debtors, hot to the flesh, to live after the 
flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but 
if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the 
body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the 
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Here the 
intellectual and morally responsible man, with will 
power to make choice between the two, is presented 
to us as solicited by the flesh — the sensual appetites 
of the physical man — on the one hand, and the Spirit 
of God on the other. The one leads downward to 
death; the other, upward to God and life. To mind 
or follow the flesh is death; to mind or walk after 
the Spirit is life and peace. The one is corrupt and 
corrupting, depraved and depraving; the other is 
pure and purifying, living and life-giving. 

Before following the apostle to the conclusion of 
his argument, let us examine a little more closely the 
idea that original sin— entailed depravity— furnishes 
the necessity of regeneration, or the new birth. 
This, except by those who, in theory, reserve original 
sin to be disposed of in sanctification as a " second 
blessing," is very commonly believed, and very in- 
consistently, as I believe and propose to show. The 
idea of conditioning the salvation of infants on their 



THE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 49 

dying in infancy, as is generally done, is unjust, ab- 
surd and unscriptural. To hold one who, as to his 
personal and responsible acts, is absolutely innocent — 
as all infants are — under condemnation and liable to 
eternal punishment is as unjust as it is unreasonable; 
and, because unjust and unreasonable, it is impos- 
sible in the economy and government of the infinite 
God. Calvinism is consistent with itself, however 
horrible its decrees, in having elect and, of course, 
nonelect infants; but to teach that infants are liable, 
as infants, to eternal death, and at the same time 
that, if they die infants, they will be saved — that 
none such can be lost — is self-contradictory and ab- 
surd. The truth is, no Arminian believes, or can be- 
lieve, that it is possible for an infant, as such — one 
that never sins — to be lost; and where there is no 
possibility, to talk of liability is preposterous. How 
intelligent men with logical minds can indulge in 
such statements, without seeing their inconsistency, 
is marvelous indeed. It is, however, the legitimate 
result of fruitless efforts to reconcile the irreconcila- 
ble, and grows out of the false assumption that origi- 
nal sin, entailed depravity, is incompatible with person- 
al acceptance with God, on the part of its unfortunate 
subjects, and must be gotten rid of in this life. 

Whatever renders regeneration — the new birth — 
necessary must, by absolute necessity, be removed by 
regeneration; for as long as it remains the necessity 
remains, or its presence does not produce the neces- 
sity. In other words, if the necessity of the new birth 
is found in the existence of entailed depravity, the 
destruction of entailed depravity is the new birth. 
And if original sin — entailed depravity — is destroyed, 
its further entailment is thereby rendered impossible. 
4 



CHAPTEE VI. 

The " Old and the New Man." 

Dr. Anson West, in his otherwise excellent book, 
the " Old and the New Man," presents some strange 
and self-contradictory views on this subject. He 
says: "If there is no such thing as original sin or 
imputed guilt, then there is no such thing as infant 
salvation." (Page 100.) If he means, as he seems to 
mean, that "original sin" is only "imputed guilt," it 
is certainly a new definition of original sin, or deprav- 
ity. My idea has been, and is, that depravity is a 
real effect of Adam's sin upon the race, and not a 
mere imputation of guilt. It seems to me that one 
who can accept the idea of "imputed guilt" might 
very readily accept imputed righteousness as its anti- 
dote, and dispense with all that is real in the salva- 
tion of infants! Unfortunately for the theory, how- 
ever, Paul tells us that " sin is not imputed when there 
is no law;" by which he evidently means that there 
is no guilt when there is no transgression of law; for 
certainly the presence of law, when it is not infracted, 
could not furnish ground for the imputation of guilt. 
It is true, he tells us, that "death passed upon all 
men, for that all have sinned;" but he tells us also 
that "the free gift came upon all men unto justifica- 
tion of life." Just so far as the sin of the " one man " 
affected his descendants — the human race — without 
their personal concurrence in the sin, just that far are 
(50) 



THE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 51 

they affected by the grace of God, in Jesus Christ, in 
absolute and unconditional recovery from the effects 
of Adam's sin. The sin was a real transgression of 
law, and had real effect upon the real sinner. The 
posterity of Adam were really present, seminally, in 
him, and in so far as the nature, which must descend 
to his children — if allowed to propagate his species — 
was affected by his sin, every individual possessing 
that nature must be effected, until the effect is re- 
moved. The effects of that sin, in personal suffering 
and death, could not, in justice, be visited upon the 
descendants of Adam unless there was provision for 
compensation and final deliverance. Herein is found 
the necessity for the atonement, if God would people 
the earth by means of the original and now fallen 
Adam. The divine plan was to furnish, in the per- 
son of his own Son, who should assume human nature 
and become the Son of man, a sacrifice sufficient to 
take away the sin of the world (of the race of man), 
and also to provide for the pardon of personal sins, 
to which each individual is more liable because of the 
weakness consequent upon the original transgression, 
and for the final and complete recovery from all the 
effects of that sin. As all died in Adam — being semi- 
nally in him — even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive — he, assuming the part of human nature and 
offering himself for its recovery from death, secured 
* a resurrection of the body, unconditionally, to all that 
possesses that nature; and gave a pledge and first fruits 
of it in his own rising out of death. This effect of 
Adam's sin is real, not imputed; and recovery from 
it is to be real, complete, and unconditional to all, 
because it came upon all as the result of an act not 



52 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

their own, and for which they cannot be held respon- 
sible. Here is salvation for infants "w T ho die in in- 
fancy;" not from sin, but from the effects of sin. 
None are sinners except those who sin, who person- 
ally transgress the law of God, the moral law. If, 
as Dr. West says (p. 100), "none can be saved but 
sinners," I do not hesitate to say infants cannot be 
saved. But is he right in so saying? 1 think not. 
As well say none can be saved from death but those 
who die; none can be saved from drowning but those 
who are drowned! He admits that they have "no 
sin through their own personal action," and contends 
that, therefore, they must have " Adam's sin imputed 
to them" in order to be saved, because "Christ died 
only for sinners." His argument ( ?), rightly put, is 
about this: "Christ died only for sinners;" infants 
have " no sin through their own personal action," and 
therefore "they are not sinners;" but God, in order 
that they might be saved, " imputed guilt " — the guilt 
of Adam's sin — to them, and then saved them from 
the imputation — there w^as nothing else to save them 
from ! That is, he saves them provided they die ! If 
they persist in living, they are to be sentenced to eter- 
nal death ! He says: " In consequence of sin imputed, 
children are sinners, and being sinners, they are under 
the full penalty of sin; and were they left where they 
are thus placed by sin, they would have to endure 
and suffer the penalty of sin throughout eternity." 
As well say that a pardoned adult is "under the full 
penalty of sin," as that infants are, who are covered 
"by the atonement of Jesus Christ made for them," 
so that, "dying in infancy," they "are saved in 
heaven." They are both in a condition dying in 



THE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 53 

which they will be taken to heaven; the one because 
his sins are pardoned, the other because he has not 
sinned and needs no pardon; and both through the 
atoning merit of Jesus Christ, the only difference 
being that one has sinned and the other has not. If 
the adult had never sinned by his " own personal 
action," he would never have needed to be converted. 
It is because of this fact that Jesus said (and says) 
to sinners, "Except ye be converted, and become as 
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of 
heaven." It is true of infants and of converted adults 
that, if they die such, they will go to heaven; but it 
is not true of either that, if they die they will be 
saved in the sense of being pardoned. Death is not 
made a condition prerequisite to salvation to any. 

On page 103 the Doctor says: "The infant is in- 
capable of exercising repentance and faith, and 
equally incapable of resisting the will of God and of 
rejecting the atonement and grace of Christ; and 
hence it is as much within the principles and methods 
of divine government to justify and regenerate the 
dying infant without faith and repentance as the 
adult with them." Justification, as applied to one 
who has personally transgressed the law — to a sinner 
— includes pardon; as applied to an infant who has 
not sinned, it does not. The one is justified in the 
sense that his sins are pardoned; the other in the 
sense that he has not sinned and therefore is not and 
cannot be condemned. If there is a single passage 
of scripture or a particle of reason given in support 
of the idea that innocent infants must die in order to 
be approved of God, it has not been my good fortune 
to see it. As to regeneration, it would be well to de~ 



54 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

fine what it is and ascertain the ground of its neces- 
sity before growing dogmatic about it. The Doctor 
tells us that "the same spirit that regenerates the 
adult person regenerates the infant, and this regen- 
eration is the same work in the one case and in the 
other. The same God who justifies the adult justifies 
the infant, and this justification is the same thing in 
the one case and in the other." If the infant and the 
adult are in the same case as to the law, the trans- 
gression of which is sin, then the justification of the 
one is the same as the other; otherwise it is not. 
But they are not and cannot be unless the adult is an 
idiot; and if an idiot, he is an infant in all that re- 
lates to the question of justification. If the adult has 
sinned "by his own personal action," then the differ- 
ence between his justification and that of the infant 
is just the difference between one who has sinned and 
is pardoned of his sin, and one who has never sinned 
and needs no pardon. If regeneration consists in the 
removal of the guilt of original sin, neither the one 
nor the other has been, or ever can be, regenerated; 
for the simple and sufficient reason that neither was 
ever or can ever be guilty of Adam's sin. If it con- 
sists in the removal of the effects of the original trans- 
gression, it does not, cannot, take place in this life, if 
death— mortality — is an effect of original sin, but 
must be deferred to the general resurrection. But 
we are speaking of a work to be clone in this life, and 
by which we are prepared for death and fitted for a 
home in heaven, and which is called regeneration or 
the new birth. 

If it does not consist in the removal of the guilt of 
original sin, nor in the removal of its effects^ we must 



THE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 55 

look elsewhere for its necessity; for whatever makes 
the new birth a necessity must be removed in and by 
regeneration. The thing that makes justification, in 
the sense of pardon, a necessity is guilt. If one is 
not guilty, he cannot be pardoned. If pardoned, he is 
no longer guilty in the eye of the law, and cannot 
justly be punished for the sin of which he was guilty. 
The fact still remains that he did sin andivas guilty, 
but he is no longer held as guilty, but stands before 
the law just as if he had never violated it. Pardon 
removes guilt because guilt is that which renders par- 
don a necessity. So of regeneration. It removes 
that the existence of which makes it a necessity. 
What, then, is regeneration, or the new birth? What 
is it that, being present, makes regeneration a neces- 
sity, and the removal of which constitutes the new 
birth? Justification, in the sense of pardon, removes 
the guilt of the sinner — that is, it frees him from the 
punishment incurred by sin and places him in the 
same legal relation that he sustained before he sinned. 
Eegeneration removes the love of sin and substitutes 
it with the love of God and that which is right and 
good. "Every one that loveth is born of God, and 
knoweth God;" and "we know that we have passed 
from death unto life because we love the brethren." 
It is the removal of death by the impartation of life 
— a quickening, a resurrection from death. It is a 
work wrought on the conscious self, the spiritual, in- 
tellectual, and affectional man, not on the physical, 
mortal flesh. The regeneration of the flesh is reserved 
for the second resurrection — the general resurrection 
at the last day, when our bodies are to be fashioned 
like unto His glorious body. The first is deliverance 



56 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

from sin, the second is final deliverance from the en- 
tailed effects of sin, and both together constitute com- 
plete redemption. 

The Doctor says: "There is as little foundation for 
the belief that the original sin of the infant has been 
blotted out before it was born as there is for the be- 
lief that the personal sins of the adult were blotted 
out before he was born." a The original sin of the 
infant" is that which results to it, as an individual, 
from the sin of Adam, and of course was not " blot- 
ted out before it was born; " but the guilt of original 
sin ivas " blotted out " or it would not have been born. 
The guilt of "original sin" never descended to any 
child of Adam. On page 123 the Doctor says: "All 
are born under the wrath of God, and liable to end- 
less hell." How a Methodist, and a man of thought, 
could have penned such a sentence it is difficult to 
imagine. Does he believe it even possible for a single 
infant, if it die without personal sin, to be sent to 
hell? No, he does not. He says: " Children dying in 
infancy are relieved from sin and its penalty, and are 
not damned in hell, but are saved in heaven." (Page 
100.) He evidently means all that die in infancy. 
All "liable to endless hell," but none by any possi- 
bility can get there! Fearful liability! Does he 
mean that they are liable to live and develop into 
capability of sin, and then will be liable to sin and 
incur the penalty of sin? This is the only sense in 
which infants are "liable to endless hell;" and "all 
are born " infants, but not "under the wrath of God." 
They are born on the basis of the atonement, and 
covered by the merits of the "second Adam," Jesus 
Christ; so that, if they never sin, they will never be 



THE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 57 

sinners and will never incur the displeasure o£ their 
heavenly Father, never be "under the wrath of God," 
nor "liable to endless hell." 

That they are born under the sentence of physical 
death, as the result of Adam's sin, having the seeds 
of mortal corruption in their physical nature, because 
born of mortal parentage, will not be questioned. 
But even this could not, in justice, have been allowed, 
if not compensated for in an unconditional resur- 
rection, provision for which is made by Jesus Christ, 
in whose resurrection we have a pledge and first 
fruits. In this mortality, with its attendant infirmi- 
ties, which are inseparable from it, is found what is 
called depravity, original sin, inbred sin. They all 
mean? the same thing. There is no infirmity of the 
mind, moral or intellectual, that is not a result of its 
tenantry of a corrupt, mortal body. Idiocy and in- 
sanity, the extremes of mental depravity, no less 
than moral deformites, are traceable to physical in- 
firmities; but not all of either to "original sin" as 
their immediate cause. The intellectual is dependent 
upon the physical, and the moral upon the intellectual 
in man. A slight impairment of the physical organ- 
ism about the brain will unhinge the mind so that in- 
tellectual responsibility is destroyed; and when in- 
tellectual responsibility is destroyed, moral responsi- 
bility is impossible. These facts are universally rec- 
ognized. 

Before the physical and intellectual are sufficiently 
developed to produce moral responsibility, moral 
character is impossible; and condemnation or liabil- 
ity to punishment to an irresponsible moral being 
is irreconcilable with the idea of justice. To charge 



58 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

such administration of government upon the infinite 
God is, it seems to me, but little, if at all, short of 
absolute blasphemy. Of course it is not intended to 
intimate that anybody does this. But I do not hesi- 
tate to charge it as a necessary sequence of the posi- 
tion that "all are born under the wrath of God, and 
liable to endless hell." Not only is there no condem- 
nation to the infant as a moral being, and no liability 
to be "damned in hell" as an infant, because of 
Adam's sin; but, dying in infancy, it will certainly, 
absolutely, and unconditionally be recovered from 
death and from all of entailed depravity necessary to 
death, and which is an inseparable accompaniment of 
a mortal state of probation. "As in Adam all die, 
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." T^iis of 
the body, the physical man. "If Christ died for all, 
then were all dead" — in Christ and to sin; "for in 
that he died, he died unto sin" — not his own, but 
man's, and for man. This of the Spirit; and it is as 
universal and unconditional as the other. "My soul 
is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death," said Jesus. 
He drank the cup to its bitterest dregs, and, so far as 
condemnation for original sin is concerned, revoked 
the sentence completely and forever, except that 
which consigned man to the dust — the sentence of 
mortality — "dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou 
return;" so that no child of Adam was ever under 
sentence of moral guiltiness, except for his own per- 
sonal sins. "God was 111 Christ reconciling the world 
unto himself," and he did it. If any man [any hu- 
man being, young or old] be in Christ, he is a new 
creature." Infants are in Christ or they are not. 
If they are not, then are they indeed "under the wrath 



THE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 59 

of God, and liable to endless hell." Who can believe 
it? If they are not "in Christ," and die, of course 
they cannot go to heaven; for there is nothing in 
death that can renew and fit a soul for heaven. To 
say that, if they die in infancy, God will regenerate 
them, but if they live they must continue unregen- 
erate and "under the wrath of God" until they repent 
of Adam's sin and exercise personal faith for its re- 
moval, is to say what finds no support in reason, 
common sense, nor revelation. The truth is, they are 
"in Christ," and there is nothing that can get them 
out of him and expose them to the penalty of the law. 
except their own personal act in sinning; and the 
grace of God prevents — that is, goes before — such act, 
in every case, sufficient to enable its avoidance, or it 
would not be sin. 

But for entailed depravity — the effects of the orig- 
inal sin upon and in the instrument with which it 
was committed, the physical body — this preventing 
grace would not be needed; for every one would then 
stand in the same relation to God that Adam did be- 
fore the fall, and there would be no provision for the 
pardon of personal sins; for, if in the case of the 
original pair, God could not, without atonement, for- 
give the sin and save the sinner, if atonement had 
placed man just where he was before he sinned, the 
same reason would have existed and the same rule 
applied; so that pardon of personal sins would still 
have been impossible, without further atonement. 
The wisdom and goodness of God, therefore, are 
displayed in the sentence of physical death, to be 
effected in each individual by means of entailed de- 
pravity — the seeds of mortality planted in the phys- 



60 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

ical nature of man — and leaving redemption to be 
completed in the final resurrection, when the proba- 
tion of all will have ended, and "the manifestations of 
the sons of God" will discover them to all "fashioned 
like unto his glorious body," through whom they 
have attained to eternal life. 



CHAPTEE VII. 

Man's Fall and Eecoveky. 

In tlie conflict necessary to the conquest of our 
fleshly nature and the yielding of our "members in- 
struments of righteousness unto God," and not "of 
unrighteousness unto sin," sufficient grace is supplied 
in Jesus Christ so that there is no excuse for sin. 
"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 
that as sin [the one sin of the 'one man,' in whom 
' all die ' because in him ' all have sinned] hath reigned 
unto death [death to all, physical death], even so 
might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal 
life by Jesus Christ our Lord.'" (Eom. v.) The 
abounding and reigning of sin was "unto death," 
death to the whole man and death to "all men." 
Grace not only abounded to the recovery of man — the 
whole of human nature — from the "offense of" the 
"one man," the "original sin" — the guilt and pen- 
alty of it — and from the immediate and necessary 
effects of it, but also to the pardon of personal sins, 
on the condition of repentance on the part of offenders. 
If death to the spirit was and is entailed, as well as to 
the body, what did the atonement effect in the recov- 
ery of man from the effects or consequences of 
Adam's sin upon the moral nature or character of his 
descendants? Can anybody tell? If all of the con- 
sequences of the original sin to human nature, includ- 

(61) 



62 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

ing the physical, intellectual, and moral man, are 
visited upon each and every descendant of Adam, 
what are the benefits of atonement and in what does 
redemption consist? In other words, if absolute and 
total depravity of the whole man is entailed upon all, 
in what sense does " the Lamb of God take away the 
sin of the world?" The guilt of Adam's sin — in a 
punishable sense — he could not take away from any 
except the original pair; for the simple reason that 
they were never guilty of it, and could not be. He 
could not take that away, even in the sense of pre- 
venting it; for in the very nature of the case it could 
never have existed, atonement or no atonement. The 
only sense then in which he did take, or could have 
taken, away the sin of the world (the human race) is 
that he forgave the sin and provided against the 
entailment of its effects or, in the case of entailment, 
for the final and unconditional recovery of all from 
its entailed effects. 

To provide against entailment entirely, so that no 
effect of Adam's sin would reach his descendants, 
would be, as we have seen, to place man just where he 
was before he sinned — just where original creation 
placed him — and to begin de novo. In that case par- 
don of personal sins would have been impossible 
without special atonement in each case; or, if Adam 
had sinned again before he had any progeny, redemp- 
tion w^ould have had to be repeated in order to people 
the world through him. To allow all the effects of 
Adam's sin, the total corruption of the whole man, to 
be entailed would be to necessitate disregard of the 
moral law, which would be to render sin impossible; 
for that which is necessitated cannot be sin. It would 



man's fall and recovery. 63 

be to destroy man as a moral agent, and to make sal- 
vation at once unnecessary and impossible. 

There was only one other way possible, and divine 
wisdom selected that — viz., to combine the two, tak- 
ing all of neither, but a part of each. " We see 
Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels 
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and 
honor, that he by the grace of God should taste death 
for every man." He "died for all," and all died in 
him — that is, because of his death, which was "unto 
sin," all for whom he died — every human being — are 
dead to sin and "alive unto God through Jesus 
Christ," in the spiritual man, and will remain so until 
spiritual death is superinduced by personal sin. This 
was necessary in order that Adam should be spared 
to propagate his species; for God could not give per- 
sonal existence to moral beings under sentence of 
guilt for an act in which they took no part. 

Originally man's moral,, spiritual life, for its con- 
tinuance, was conditioned upon obedience to the com- 
mandment touching the fruit of the "tree of knowl- 
edge of good and evil," which was in the midst of the 
garden of Eden, of which he was forbidden to eat. 
His physical life, the life of the body, for its continu- 
ance, was evidently dependent upon the fruit of the 
tree of life, which also stood in the midst of the gar- 
den and to which he had free access until he forfeited 
the favor of God by eating of the forbidden fruit; for 
the Lord guarded the way to the tree of life, lest he 
should eat thereof and live forever. Sentence of 
physical death was passed upon man, and this was the 
means of executing it. 

Spiritual death was the necessary result of the dis- 



64 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

obedience which was the transgression of the law, 
and was visited upon the transgressor the very day 
the penalty was incurred. Its perpetuation would 
have been eternal death, which would have followed 
but for Him who is " as a lamb slain from the foun- 
dation of the world," because given in promise as 
" the seed of the woman " which should bruise the 
serpent's head, and in whom, as to spiritual life, the 
human race seminally existed; as it existed in Adam 
in its physical and intellectual being. In this sense 
the world, to reconcile which unto himself God was 
in Christ, was "created anew in Christ Jesus/' so that 
every human being born into the world is as certainly 
and as really a child of God, in and through Jesus 
Christ, as he is a child of Adam by natural genera- 
tion. It is for this reason, I doubt not, that Christ 
is called the second Adam. He did not take Adam's 
place in such sense as that we are his descendants in 
our physical and mental being. In these we are the 
children of Adam. Adam was "the son of God," and 
if he had not forfeited the relation by sin his de- 
scendants w T ould have sustained the relation of child- 
ship to God as well as to Adam. Christ in human 
nature is "the seed of the woman," "the seed of 
Abraham," and preeminently "the Son of man." 
But he is also the Son of God, not only in his divine 
nature, but also in that which is human. The angel 
said to Mary: "The holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow 
thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be 
born of thee shall be called the Son of God." It was 
this human Son of God, by direct divine genesis 
through a human mother, that, as to spiritual life in 



man's fall and recovery. 65 

the moral man or childship to God — they are the 
same — was the second Adam. So that every descend- 
ant of the first Adam, though inheriting from him the 
depravity which ends in physical death, at the same 
time, by virtue of relationship to Jesus Christ, the 
second Adam, is "of the kingdom of God" — a child 
of the kingdom — an " heir according to the promise." 
Childship to God the Father, since the fall, is 
through Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of 
man, both as to the spirit and the body. The first in 
this life, the latter in the resurrection. The first by 
generation and by regeneration or adoption, the lat- 
ter by adoption iD the final regeneration — " to wit, the 
redemption of our body." ifVgeneration, or adoption 
— the new birth — looking to childship to God in this 
life, is never applied to infants, but only to those who 
have personally sinned and forfeited the favor of God 
to their own disinheriting — those who are dead in their 
trespasses and sins. To them it is said, "Ye must 
be born again," and " except ye be converted, and 
become as little children [as ye were when little chil- 
dren], ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." 
When Jesus says, " Except ye repent, ye shall all like- 
wise perish," nobody thinks of applying his language 
to infants; but when he says, "Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," it is at 
once applied to infants as though they were more 
capable of receiving the one than the other. The 
first does not apply to them, not only because they 
are incapable of understanding and complying with 
the condition, repentance, but because they have 
nothing to repent of. For the same reasons the other 
does not and cannot apply to them. They no more 
5 



66 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

need to be born again than they need to repent, for 
the necessity for both is found in the precise same 
thing — viz., personal sins, by which they apostatize 
from the favor of God and become children of the 
devil. " He that committeth sin is of the devil," and 
none other. 

The regeneration of the body will take place in the 
final resurrection, and is secured by "Jesus Christ 
our Lord, which was made of the seed of David ac- 
cording to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of 
God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, 
by the resurrection from the dead." 

Entailed depravity, original sin — except in the case 
of Enoch, Elijah, and " we which are alive and remain 
unto the coming of the Lord," — ultimates to all in 
physical death and the corruption which follows, and 
is never to be destroyed, except by the refining proc- 
esses of the resurrection. "The last enemy that 
shall be destroyed is death;" and death will not be 
destroyed until the grave is robbed of its victory. 
"Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is 
written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, 
where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 
It is because of this tendency to death, and the sen- 
sual appetites that accompany it which, when in- 
dulged, hasten the consummation, that grace is needed 
to subdue and control the carnal nature, bringing it 
into obedience to the will of and yielding its members 
as instruments of righteousness unto God. And it is 
because this depravity is an entailment, and not the 
result of our own acts, that grace abounds in the offer 
of pardon of personal sins which, though not necessi- 
tated by it, were rendered easier of commission. 



man's fall and recovery. 67 

Man — the whole race — was " created anew in Christ 
Jesus," as to his moral relationship to God the Father, 
and given a new probation with reference to eternity. 
Not as at first, all in one — seminally — to stand or 
fall; but, "as by the offense of one judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation [because all were semi- 
nally in that one]; even so by the righteousness of 
one the free gift came upon all men unto justification 
of life," because in him (Jesus Christ), spiritually, 
the life of all seminally existed. So that each and 
every one, as a distinct personal existence in moral 
being, begins with moral, spiritual life — the Christ 
life — in his soul. It would be as easy to conceive of 
God as creating man originally a sinner, "dead in 
trespasses and sins," as to conceive that in the new 
creation he provided that all — that any — should be 
born guilty and " under the wrath of God." In either 
case, were either possible, the guilt would attach to 
the creator, not to the creature. In the original cre- 
ation Adam was made the fountain from which the 
life stream should flow to all human beings, because 
all were to descend from him. If the fountain had 
continued pure, as God made it, each and every life 
stream that issued from it would have started as pure 
as the fountain from which it flowed. The fountain 
was befouled, corrupted, and would have been dried 
up as a source of life but for the interposition of the 
redeeming love and wisdom of God. Infinite wisdom 
saw that if streams of life {life is used here of self- 
active existence on a moral basis) were allowed to 
flow from this fountain, the fountain must be cleansed, 
purified, or the streams would be foul from their 
source and could never become pure. He therefore 



68 THE PBOBLEM SOLVED. 

determined to take away the befouling thing, original 
sin, and its defilement from the moral man, leaving 
only its effect, mortality, upon the physical, material 
body, and providing for enablement through grace 
for its subordination to the divine will in this life 
and for its final recovery from death in the resurrec- 
tion which is to be accomplished by the "second 
Adam," who is made a quickening spirit. In order 
to this " that eternal life, which was with the Father, 
. . . was manifested unto us " in the person of the 
Son of man, that from him, as a newly created foun- 
tain, spiritual life should issue to and in every de- 
scendant of the first Adam. So that every streamlet 
of human life, from a moral standpoint, should start 
free from defilement and with enablement through 
grace to keep itself so. 

Infancy is not more absolutely helpless and de- 
pendent than morally innocent. It is not only not 
guilty of "sin, but is not even capable of guiltiness. 
If morally innocent, it cannot be morally corrupt or 
depraved; for guilt is impossible except as a result of 
violation of law, and is the only result of such viola- 
tion. Penalty is not a result of the act of trans- 
gression. If it were, the sinner would be his own 
executioner, and in the very act of sinning. Moral 
depravity, therefore, is moral guiltiness; and as guilt 
cannot be entailed, inherited depravity cannot be 
predicated of the moral man as to its relation to mor- 
al law, and can only mean, when thus applied, the 
weakening of the moral power. Moral power inheres 
in and is dependent upon the intellectual in man, 
and can, therefore, be affected only through the 
mind. If the moral perceptivity be weakened, moral 



man's fall and recovery. 69 

responsibility is correspondingly weakened; and if it 
be wholly destroyed, moral character is thereby ren- 
dered impossible. So with the power to will. De- 
prived of these, or of either one of them^ man ceases 
to be a moral agent, and cannot be held morally re- 
sponsible. Such a one can never, as long as this 
inability continues, become morally corrupt; and, if 
he has never existed without it, can never have been 
so. This, it seems to me, is axiomatic. Now it so 
happens that every descendant of Adam begins life 
in this world with just that inability. Not one has 
moral perceptivity to begin with, and not one, there- 
fore, is capable of being or of becoming morally 
corrupt as to character: that is, as to personal rela- 
tion to moral law. 

Moral corruption cannot precede moral responsi- 
bility; and moral responcibility cannot precede moral 
perceptivity ; and moral perceptivity cannot exist until 
the intellect is developed sufficiently to discern be- 
tween right and wrong from a moral standpoint; and 
the development of the intellect is dependent upon 
the growth of the physical organism. Thus it is 
seen that whatever of depravity is entailed upon man 
necessarily inheres in the physical body, and affects 
the spirit only in weakening its powers, and never 
with moral defilement until the mind consents to the 
defiling act, knowing that it is wrong. It is because 
of this fact, no doubt, that Paul characterizes the 
various sins which are committed by men as "the 
works of the flesh," and declares that "to be carnally 
minded [to mind the flesh] is death; but to be spir- 
itually minded [to mind the Spirit] is life and peace," 
and assigns as the reason: " Because the carnal mind 



70 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

[the mind that subordinates itself to the flesh] is en- 
mity against God: for it is not subject to the law of 
of God, neither indeed can be. So that they that are 
in the flesh [in voluntary subjection to the flesh] can- 
not please God," The flesh is at once the source of 
sin, so far as it is traceable to Adam's transgression, 
and the instrument through which it finds expression; 
but the tenant of the body, the conscious self, is al- 
ways the agent to whom the guilt of sin attaches, 
and who must, therefore, perform the condition upon 
which the pardon of sin is offered, and receive the 
witness of acceptance with God, and enjoy the peace 
which comes "through our Lord Jesus Christ." 

There is no responsibility attaching to the flesh; 
for whatever is done by the flesh is done by the con- 
scious self that tenants it, and by the flesh only as 
an instrument by means of which the deed is wrought. 
The flesh is, therefore, never addressed in the word 
of God. It is never commanded to do or to forbear, 
and what it does is never catalogued as guilt, except 
when set down to the account of the spirit that is 
said to "walk after the flesh." It is nevertheless 
true that every sin against which we are warned in 
the Bible is expressed through and by means of the 
flesh, and every virtue required to be practiced in- 
volves antagonism to fleshly appetites and passions; 
also that every temptation to sin finds its occasion in 
promised gratification of the fleshly nature of man. 
In a word, the sum total of practical religion is the 
subordination of the flesh, the physical organism, to 
the will of God, which can be accomplished only by 
"bringing into captivity every thought to the obedi- 
ence of Christ." Moral character is developed, in its 



man's fall and recovery. 71 

Godlikeness, by friction ; and the warfare is between 
the flesh and the spirit, between death and life. Death 
reigns in the body, life in the spirit. The spirit is 
superior to the body, and in single combat the chances 
for victory would favor the spirit, as the stronger 
party; but Satan espouses the cause of the flesh, and 
becomes the commander of its forces and leads into 
captivity to his will every one who does not fight 
under the banner of the Cross, and strictly obey the 
"Captain of their salvation," who himself was made 
"perfect through suffering". Death entered the 
world by sin, and Satan was the instigator of sin. 
It is he "that had the power of death," and to de- 
stroy him, in his influence, is to destroy death. " For 
this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he 
might destroy the works of the devil." The strife, 
then, is between the Son of God, manifested as the 
Son of man, and Satan, the archfiend of darkness, 
and foe to God and man. Having succeeded in sedu- 
cing Adam, and by his agency introduced death into 
the world, the devil follows up the seeming advantage 
gained, and tries through the flesh, in which the 
seeds of death are found, to capture his descendants, 
who, redeemed by the death of Jesus Christ, are on a 
pilgrimage to the land of eternal blessedness and life. 
Every child born into the world is an object of in- 
terest to both parties, Christ and the devil; and is 
destined, if he attain to personal responsibility in 
this life, to become a party to the strife and fight 
under one banner or the other. In his physical body 
he is an heir of death, being a child of mortal parents, 
and as such a subject of his kingdom who "had the 
power of death," and who is its progenitor. In his 



72 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

spiritual being lie is an heir of life, being a cliild of 
God through. Jesus Christ, and as such is "of the 
kingdom of heaven." If he fight in the ranks of the 
wicked, and under the flag of death, he must first de- 
sert the army of the Prince of life, and ally himself 
with the enemy of all righteousness — must apostatize 
from the favor of God, and incur the penalty of per- 
sonal transgression. Whether he will do so or not, 
in each individual case depends largely, almost en* 
tirely, on the environment and teaching under which 
he developes into a moral agent, and becomes per- 
sonally responsible for his actions. Hence the im- 
portance of the early and proper training of children, 
and of the means to this end. This importance is 
not only recognized by Infinite Wisdom, but, in the 
revelation which God has made of himself and of his 
plan for saving the world it is clearly set forth and 
emphasized for the instruction and encouragement of 
man, and the means provided by the use of which the 
end may be accomplished. 

One of the main objects for which the Church with 
its sacraments and religious ceremonials was insti- 
tuted was that children should be trained up in the 
way they should go — nourished with the discipline 
and doctrine of the Lord. This is the tenor of Bible 
teaching, and is founded in philosophical principles. 
The newborn infant is utterly helpless, not even hav- 
ing the instincts of the lower order of animals, and 
must be cared for and provided with whatever is nec- 
essary to the preservation of life and the promotion 
of its growth and development unto self-reliant and 
self-sustaining proportions in all that it takes to con- 
stitute a morally responsible being, as well as in its 



man's fall and recovery. 73 

mere animal, physical organism. The mind is no 
more capable of self-preservation and development 
than the body, and moral agency and moral character 
are dependent upon the capacity of the mind and its 
development. 

In its moral relations the mind can be developed 
only through and by means of the physical body, and 
by other minds with like physical environments, 
which have already been developed to a greater or 
less extent — sufficiently, at least, to be able to com- 
municate ideas. The more thoroughly the teacher is 
educated the better he is prepared to teach. This is 
as true in the sphere of morals and religion as in lit- 
erature and the arts and sciences. If there is a time 
when the student can dispense with the surroundings 
and stimulus of the schoolroom with its cooperative 
helps and influences, it is not before he matriculates, 
but after he has graduated. When he has acquired 
the habit of and love for study, and has thoroughly 
acquainted himself by means of these helps with the 
principles underlying the practice to which he pro- 
poses to devote his life, he may dispense with the helps 
of the schoolroom; but not before. The Church is 
the school of Christ, in which his disciples are to be 
taught the science of salvation, the principles of mor- 
al government, and to be trained to the habit of 
obedience to the divine law — the law of love. If 
there is a time when the restraints of this school and 
the helps it affords can be dispensed with, it seems to 
me it must be after one has acquired a knowledge of 
Christ and his plans, and become habituated to obe- 
dience and learned to love his service; and not be- 
fore. 



74 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

This is not only the teaching of reason, trat of the 
Scriptures also. God appointed that the seal of the 
covenant should be placed upon the little ones and 
that they should be taught its significance and re- 
quired to observe the obligations of the covenant; 
and selected Abraham with whom and through whom 
to perpetuate the covenant and fulfill its promise, be- 
cause he knew him, that he would command his chil- 
dren and his household after him, that they should keep 
the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that 
the Lord might bring upon Abraham that which he 
had spoken of him. Under the provisions of this cov- 
enant and in fulfillment of its promise Jesus of Naz- 
areth was born and reared. He was born King of the 
Jews; and, though not of the world, his kingdom was 
(and is) in the world. His was not a temporal but a 
spiritual kingdom; and " he is not a Jew which is one 
outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is out- 
ward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one in- 
wardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of 
men, but of God." His, then, was the kingdom of 
God; and he says of the "little ones," " Of such is the 
kingdom of God," and teaches, through his apostles, 
that they shall be nourished with the discipline and 
doctrine of the Lord. 

If it is true, as I think has been clearly shown, that 
original sin (entailed depravity) inheres in the flesh 
— the mortal body — and, through the infirmities con- 
sequent on and inseparable from a state of mortal 
probation, affects the spirit, the moral and immortal 
» part, the importance of proper early training cannot 
be overestimated. And if to effect it, it becomes nee- 



man's fall and recoveky. 75 

essary to exercise authority in the enforcement of 
discipline, to do so is not to infringe upon the rights 
of the child, but to maintain the right and discharge 
the duty which God has secured to and laid upon the 
parent in the interest of the child. It would not be 
more absurd to contend that it is wrong to shelter 
and protect an infant from threatened injuries of a 
physical character of which it is unconscious, because 
it cannot understand the reasons for and appreciate 
the kindness done, than to object to giving it the 
shelter aDd protection which membership in the 
Church affords, because it is "an unconscious babe!" 



CHAPTEB VIII. 

Mebct — Why Needed. 

Mekcy is a need begotten of guilt; and when mercy 
is dispensed in pardon guilt is taken away, so that 
mercy is no longer needed and cannot be sought un- 
til another transgression of law renews the guilt and 
brings again the real and conscious need of pardon. 
This proposition must commend itself to every 
thoughtful mind. Let the reader pause long enough 
to take in and duly consider what it expresses; for, if 
it is true, the theory of the "second blessing," as to 
what it does and what is necessary to its attainment, 
cannot possibly be true. To ask for pardon is to con- 
fess the need of it; and to confess the need of pardon 
is to confess the guilt of transgression. Now when a 
sinner penitently forsakes and seeks the pardon of his 
sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, he receives, 
not " the spirit of bondage again to fear, but . . . 
the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
we are the children of God. And if children, then 
heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." 
Unless God can be supposed to adopt as his children 
unpardoned sinners, making them joint heirs with 
Christ, his Son, and attesting this fact to their con- 
sciousness by his Spirit, no child of God can be said 
to need pardon, unless he personally sin after his 
adoption. 

Nor can it be supposed that God will pardon and 
(76) 



MEKCY — WHY NEEDED. 77 

adopt as his child one whom, though pardoned, he 
does not cleanse from the defilement of sin and create 
anew in Christ Jesus. Now let the reader answer to 
his own satisfaction this question: Can he be a new 
creature in Christ Jesus who is still possessed of the 
"old man," "the body of sin," "inbred sin" — taking 
these terms to mean something that was inherited 
from Adam and that unfits us for heaven, and that must 
therefore be gotten rid of in this life ? If so, what does 
regeneration accomplish ? What is it to be " created 
in Christ Jesus?" to be "born again" — born of the 
Spirit? " According to the "second blessing" theory, 
these terms only express the pardon of personal sins 
and the cleansing from their defilement, leaving orig- 
inal sin untouched, both as to its guilt and defilement. 
In this it is right, if they who hold and teach it could 
be made to see and accept the fact that neither the 
guilt nor defilement of original sin attaches to the 
moral nature of any descendant of Adam — that it was 
taken away, nailed to the cross. If regeneration — the 
new birth — destroys only actual, personal sin and its 
defilement, then infants do not need to be born again, 
for they have not personally sinned. And yet the 
"second blessing" theorists, as far as I know, all be- 
lieve that infants need to be regenerated. Dr. Eos- 
ser, in his reply to the "Problem of Methodism," 
said: "Then all infants, dying in infancy, need not 
regeneration." Assuming that they do need regener- 
ation, he offers as an argument against Dr. Boland's 
theory that it teaches that they do not. If he find 
the necessity for the new birth in original sin — en- 
tailed depravity — then, by logical necessity, regener- 
ation takes away original sin, and there is nothing 



78 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

left for the second blessing to accomplish; for if the 
existence of original sin in man makes regeneration a 
necessity, they cannot coexist. If a man is regener- 
ated, he does not need to be regenerated, and will nev- 
er need it again, unless that which makes it a neces- 
sity should again exist. But a man cannot inherit 
depravity but once, unless he can " enter the second 
time into his mother's womb, and be born." 

If original sin is not that which renders regenera- 
tion necessary, then the necessity for the new birth 
must be found in actual, personal sin; for there is 
nothing else to which it can be ascribed. But if per- 
sonal transgressions of the law make regeneration a 
necessity, regeneration and justification are one and 
the same thing, or regeneration must consist in the 
removal of the effect of these personal sins — the defile- 
ment which they produce. If justification is the par- 
don of personal sins, and regeneration removes the 
defilement thereof, then there is nothing left for the 
"second blessing" to do. Thus it is seen that the 
logical and necessary result of these simple truisms 
is to utterly and forever overthow the " second bless- 
ing" theory of sanctification. 

Again: Infants either do or do not need to be 
"born again." If they do not, then entailed deprav- 
ity does not render the new birth a necessity, or in- 
fants are not depraved. If they are not depraved, 
then there is no such thing as entailed depravity. If 
they are depraved and therefore need to be "born 
again," " born of the Spirit," they are not the chil- 
dren of God, but the children of the devil; for they 
are spiritual and moral beings (I do not say moral 
agents) and as such hold relation to the spiritual 



MERCY — WHY NEEDED. 79 

world, and to one or the other of two families — God's 
and the devil's. The Saviour says of them: " Of such 
is the kingdom of God;" and "Except ye [adult sin- 
ners who are not of the kingdom] be converted, and 
become as little children, ye cannot enter into the 
kingdom of heaven." Of course those of whom the 
kingdom is composed do not need to be converted in 
order to get into it. The simple, plain, and obvious 
meaning of the Saviour is, the kingdom of God is 
composed of such as these — little children — and ex- 
cept ye, by conversion, become like them — as they 
are in their relation to God, the King — ye cannot en- 
ter into the kingdom of God. God is no respecter or 
persons, and as all little children sustain the same 
moral relation to him, and as every descendant of 
Adam begins life as a little child, it follows that every 
human being begins life in this world a citizen of the 
kingdom of God, and entitled to all the privileges 
and blessings accruing, through Jesus Christ, to the 
subjects of his kingdom. 

There are none, then, outside the kingdom, except 
those who have gone out voluntarily, by personally 
transgressing the law of God, by sinning; and if 
they ever again enjoy the privilege of citizenship 
therein they will have to voluntarily " return unto the 
Lord, and he will have mercy upon them, and to our 
God, for he will abundantly pardon." The only un- 
fitness for this citizenship that any possess is that 
which they have acquired by voluntary personal sin. 
When the sin is pardoned and they are cleansed from 
its defilement, as to moral relationship, they stand 
precisely where they did before they sinned — have 
become "as little children." 



80 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

In their physical and intellectual being they may 
have grown out of babyhood, and even into mature 
manhood; but in their moral they had ^generated, 
and hence had to be "born again" and, as moral be- 
ings, begin life anew. They are therefore "babes in 
Christ;" and when they "ought to be teachers, have 
need that one teach " them " again which be the first 
principles of the oracles of God; and are become such 
as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." If 
from their infancy they had been nourished with the 
discipline and doctrine of the Lord, and their moral 
and spiritual had kept pace with their physical 
growth, they would have developed into a moral man- 
hood capable of digesting "strong meat" and of en- 
during "hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ;" 
would have " come in the unity of the faith, and of 
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, 
unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of 
Christ." A "babe in Christ," whether a little child 
w T ho has never personally apostatized or an adult 
who, because of personal* apostasy, had to be "re- 
newed in knowledge after the image of him that cre- 
ated him," is " freed from sin," being a partaker of 
his death who "died unto sin once," and "died for 
all;" and "if one died for all, then were all dead" — 
"dead to sin, and alive unto God through Jesus 
Christ." If an infant, and a babe in Christ, as all 
infants are, he is free from personal sin and its defile- 
ment because he has never sinned and has never been 
morally defiled. If a pardoned and regenerated adult, 
he is free from sin because he has by faith, having 
repented of his sins, accepted the offer of life in Jesus 
Christ, and appropriated the merits of his death. He 



MERCY — WHY NEEDED. 81 

is dead to sin in that he is " crucified with Christ," 
and the life that he now lives he lives by the faith of 
the Son of God, by whom he is crucified unto the 
world, and the world unto him. He is free from the 
defilement of sin because saved " by the washing of 
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which 
he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." He is therefore, as to moral defilement, just 
where he was when an infant, where he was before 
he sinned. As to depravity, he still has all that he 
inherited and, in addition to this, all that he has ac- 
quired by personal transgression. But depravity is 
not guiltiness, and is therefore neither punishable 
nor pardonable. It is the scar which, though the 
wound be healed, remains as a reminder of the un- 
wisdom by which it was inflicted; and will be de- 
stroyed when the new creation is completed and all 
the effects of sin are removed — in the regeneration, 
when the Son of man shall appear the second time, 
without sin, unto salvation to every one that loves 
and looks for his appearing. This is the perfection, 
the "second blessing," of which Paul speaks when he 
says: "If by any means I might attain unto the res- 
urrection of the dead," and adds: "Not as though I 
had already attained, either were already perfect" It 
is the perfection which is to be attained by faithful- 
ness "unto death," and to be wrought by him "who 
shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned 
like unto his glorious body, according to the working 
whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto 
himself. 
6 



CHAPTEE IX. 

The Aek and Its Lesson. 

The salvation of Noah and his family in the ark 
fitly types the salvation of the world — the human 
race—in Jesus Christ. But for this preservation the 
race had been destroyed; and but for the ark 
they had perished with the rest. To Noah in the 
ark, therefore, may be traced and attributed the per- 
petuation of Adam's race upon the earth, 

So, when Adam sinned and brought death into the 
world, the race had perished from the earth in him but 
for Christ, in whom, as our ark of safety, taking refuge 
by faith, he found deliverance from spiritual death 
for himself, and, by consequence, for all his descend- 
ants. For "as by the offense of one judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation, even so by the right- 
eousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto 
justification of life." They were as certainly and as 
much in him when the free gift was offered and ac- 
cepted unto justification of life as when by his one of- 
fense judgment came to condemnation. The phys- 
ical death of Adam was not a natural and necessary 
result of sin; nor was it the penalty inflicted as a 
punishment for that sin. That it was not the first 
is seen in the fact that, to produce it, he was debarred 
access to the tree of life. That it was not the latter 
is evidenced by the fact that, in dying for man, 
Christ did not exempt Adam nor his posterity from 
(82) 



THE AKK AND ITS LESSON. 83 

physical death. In the sense in which he became 
man's substitute in (lying, man does not, cannot die, 
except as a result of his own personal sin. "And 
you, being dead in your sins [not Adam's sin] and 
the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened 
together with him, having forgiven you all tres- 
passes." ( Col. ii. 13. ) Here we have " sins" and " tres- 
passes," in the plural; not the one offense, "original 
sin." In Ephesians ii. 1 we have the same expression: 
"who w T ere dead in trespasses and sins." The con- 
text in both places shows that the apostle is speaking 
not of original sin, but of personal transgressions of 
the law as the sins in which they were dead; and 
from this death, produced by their own sins, they were 
said to be quickened. This fact is recognized through- 
out the Bible. " The soul that sinneth, it shall die " 
is the law ordained of God. The death of the soul, 
spiritual death, is the penalty incurred by the viola- 
tion of the moral law — by sin. 

Physical death, while the occasion for its introduc- 
tion into the world was furnished by Adam's sin, did 
not follow as a necessity; nor was it the penalty in- 
curred by his transgression. It was a provision de- 
vised by infinite Wisdom in the reconditioning of 
man's relation to himself and his law, after man's 
apostasy. As w r e have already seen, to have restored 
Adam completely and at once to his primeval condi^ 
tion w r ould have been, so far as Adam was concerned, 
to repeat the test to which he was at first put, and to 
have left his descendants without remedy for any vio- 
lation of law of which any should be guilty. To have 
enforced the law, and executed the offender at once, 
would have been to defeat the purpose of peopling 



84 THE PBOBLEM SOLVED. 

the earth, or to necessitate a new creation and anoth- 
er trial. To have delayed the execution, would have 
been to have delayed justice, which, of course, God 
could not do. He must forgive the sin, or punish 
the sinner by inflicting the penalty at once. He 
could not do both. If the sin is pardoned, its penalty 
cannot be visited, even in part, upon the sinner. 
Either, then, the sin was not and is not pardoned, 
or physical death was not the penalty, nor any part of 
it, that was intended when God said, "In the day 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;" for Adam 
did die physically. And not only he, but all his de- 
scendants; and all die in him — that is, all are par- 
takers of mortality because all were in him when and 
after he became mortal by the purpose and sentence 
of God. 

If physical death is neither the natural and neces- 
sary effect of original sin, nor the penalty of the sin 
of Adam, how and in what sense is it the result to 
the race of the original transgression? Answer. 
God determined to forgive the sin and restore the 
original sinner to the life that was forfeited thereby — 
viz., spiritual life, soul life — through the merits of 
his own Son, who undertook, in his own person, to 
become a sin offering to this end; and, in doing so, 
to arrange that his posterity should not only be gra- 
ciously restored, in Adam and through Christ, to the 
being and spiritual life which they had in him, po- 
tentially, before he sinned, but also to provide for 
dispensing mercy to any who might, on account of 
personal sins, need and would avail themselves of it 
as offered in the Redeemer of the world. In order 
to this, he subjected man to mortality, with its neces- 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 85 

sary infirmities, and provided for Jiis resurrection 
and final glorification as a compensation for the brief 
period of suffering and sorrow through which, as a 
mortal being, he must necessarily pass; and, also, for 
grace to sustain and the Spirit to comfort him in his 
afflictions, and to sanctify them to his good,' and to 
cause them to work out for him "a far more exceed- 
ing and eternal weight of glory." To accomplish 
this, having "appointed unto man once to die," phys- 
ically, the Son of God "took on him the seed of 
Abraham," with whom the promise was deposited 
(having been renewed to him) under seal of the 
covenant to be developed through type and proph- 
ecy, and to be fulfilled in himself as the Son of man. 
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of 
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of 
the same; that through death he might destroy him 
that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and 
deliver them, who through fear of death were all 
their lifetime subject to bondage." In taking "on 
him the seed of Abraham" he became "the seed of 
the woman," of whom, to the serpent, it was said, 
"he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his 
heel." 

This language, of course, is in a measure figurative; 
but is intended to convey a lesson of vast importance 
to man. What is it? The general lesson, as all con- 
cede, is the redemption of the race through Jesus 
Christ. But what is intended by the expressions, 
put one over against the other : " He shall bruise thy 
head, and thou shalt braise his heel?" The lesson is 
a specific, as well as a general one. The "head" and 
the "heel" are words that seem to have special 



86 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

meaning, and must apply to something specific and 
definite in the accomplishment of the work of re- 
demption. What can it be ? "And I will pat en- 
mity between thee and the woman, and between thy 
seed and her seed." The serpent here addressed evi- 
dently represents the devil, whatever may be the 
speculations as to whether it was an "orang-outang," 
or a real and literal serpent; and his "seed" must 
mean the wicked among men, as he has no literal 
progeny; and, perhaps, the physical body of man 
(all men), which, because of his seduction of the 
first pair, has in it the seeds of death, which is em- 
phatically the work of the devil. 

By "the woman," of course, is meant, not only 
the one personally addressed, Eve, but also women 
generally — all her daughters; and "her seed" is Je- 
sus Christ, who is the seed of the ivoman, not of the man, 
being on the paternal side the Son of God. In an- 
other and broader sense, "her seed" means the hu- 
man family, the whole race; but as included in 
the one seed, Jesus Christ, through w 7 hom they have 
been given a being in the world, and in whom they 
have life, spiritual life. In this latter sense "the 
•woman" between whose "seed" and the "seed" of 
the serpent the Lord said, "I will put enmity," rep- 
resents the Church — the "Jerusalem which is above" 
and "is free, which is the mother of us all.'' 9 The 
head of the serpent and the heel of the seed of the 
woman are to be bruised. The idea seems to be that 
the head of the serpent is to be crushed under 
the heel of the woman's seed, as by stamping; in doing 
which the heel is to be bruised. As applied to Satan, 
the bruising cannot be taken literally, and must there- 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON, 87 

fore have reference to his work as manifested in 
fallen man 3 If it refers to the work of redemption, 
the recovery of man from the power of Satan, as all 
believe, this is a necessity. 

Taking this view of the subject, the bruising of 
the serpent's head is the recovery of the spirit of 
man from his dominion — the crushing out of original 
sin as to its effect upon the moral man, its guilt. To 
effect this the Son of God took on him the seed of 
Abraham; was "made of a teaman, made under the 
law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we 
might receive the adoption of sons." We have al- 
ready seen that physical death to man was an appoint- 
ment of God, not a natural and necessary result of Ad- 
am's sin nor the penalty inflicted therefor. It was rath- 
er a necessity to the redemption of man in such way as 
to recondition him in his relation to God, and pro- 
vide, in so doing, for the expression of divine mercy 
in the pardon of personal sins and the restoration of 
the sinner to the gracious favor of him whose law is 
transgressed in Finning. It is nevertheless true that 
"by man came death" and that "in Adam all die;" 
for it was his sin that made it necessary to appoint 
"unto man once to die." But this appointment was 
made on the basis of the atonement, and in order to 
the reconditioning of which we have spoken, with 
the understanding that, "as in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive." 

He might have exempted Adam from physical 
death, as well as quickened him into spiritual life ; 
but, as we have seen, that would have been to begin 
de novo, with no provision for after sins, should any 
be committed. He therefore subjected man to death 



88 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

and gave him a mortal probation, providing for grace 
to help him overcome the depravity necessarily en- 
tailed upon mortal probationers. And because " the 
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also him- 
self likewise took part of the same; that through death 
he might destroy him that had the power of death, 
that is, the devil; and deliver them, who through fear 
of death w T ere all their lifetime subject to bondage." 
Thus was the serpent permitted to bruise his heel. 

The wound, so far as the body of Jesus was con- 
cerned, was soon healed. He had "suffered being 
tempted," was "a man of sorrows and acquainted 
with grief. . . . But he was wounded for our 
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; " and 
he triumphed over death and the grave; led captivity 
captive, and ascended to the glory which he had 
with the Father before the world was. He, however, 
still identifies himself with his people, and still bruises 
the serpent's head in every one who crucifies "the 
flesh with the affections and lusts." Herein is found 
perpetuated the "enmity" that God said, "I will put 
between thy seed [the serpent] and her [the woman's] 
seed." Death is the devil's domain; and, except in so 
far as recovered through the conquering cross of 
Christ, they who are found therein are his rightful 
property. Man, in his spiritual being, has been re- 
covered from the death consequent upon original sin 
as its penalty, so that every child of Adam has his 
start in being, as a personal entity, on the basis of 
atonement a new creature in Christ Jesus, who is the 
life, as well as "the light of the world." 

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he 
is none of his," though spoken to and of adults, is 



THE AEK AND ITS LESSON. 89 

also true of infants, the only difference being that in 
the case of adults the indwelling of the Spirit is 
conditioned upon the faith of the individual in 
whom he dwells; while infants, being incapable of 
sin, offer no bar to his indwelling, and he abides with 
them until expelled by unbelief. That they are 
Christ's none will question; and if they are, then " the 
Spirit of God dwells in them." Hence it is that, 
" except ye be converted and become as little children 
[temples of the Holy Ghost], ye cannot enter into 
the kingdom of God." "And if Christ be in you, 
the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life 
because of righteousness." Not that the body is re- 
ally and literally dead, but only that it is yet mortal 
and destined to succumb to death and return to dust. 
Redemption is not completed when the spirit is re- 
newed, but, being still in a mortal body, its business 
is to use its (the body's) " members as instruments of 
righteousness unto God." Encouragement to this is 
found in the assurance that, "if the Spirit of him that 
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that 
raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken 
your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, 
to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, 
ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify 
the deeds of the body, ye shall live." There is more 
implied in "quicken your mortal bodies" than the 
simple resurrection of the body, for the same apostle 
tell us " that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, 
both of the just and unjust." Whether, therefore, 
"the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the 
dead dwell in you" or not, the body will be raised. 



90 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

But the prophet Daniel tells us that they " that sleep 
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlast- 
ing life, and some to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." The idea of the apostle seems to be that, if 
the Spirit of God dwell in you, the mortal body 
shall not only be raised, but also be made to partake of 
the life that is in Jesus Christ — fashioned like unto 
his glorious body. This is true of every one who is 
"alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord," 
whether an infant who has never forfeited the life 
that is in him or an adult who, though once " dead in 
trespasses and sins," has been "quickened together 
with him." "The body is dead because of sin," even 
"if Christ be in you," and must remain so until re- 
stored in the final resurrection; but the spirit is alive 
unto God through Jesus Christ. 

The strife in this militant state is therefore between 
life and death, and for life or death. If the Spirit, 
through the grace of God in Christ and by faith, cru- 
cifies the flesh with its affections and lusts and yields 
its members as instruments of righteousness unto 
God, the body will be raised to " everlasting life " at 
last; but if it yield obedience to the flesh and let "sin 
reign in" the "mortal body," it will die. So says the 
apostle. "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: 
but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of 
the body, ye shall live." The living, then, of the con- 
scious self, the inner and real man, in the highest and 
truest sense of life, depends upon the control it main- 
tains over the mortal body in its pilgrimage to the 
grave. This mastery can be effected only through 
the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and is necessary to 
"the adoption" — to wit, "the redemption of our 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 91 

body" — for which the Christian waits in hope. Ke- 
nieniber, I do not say that it is necessary to the res- 
urrection of the body; but only that it is necessary 
to the "adoption" of the body, when raised, and its 
"manifestation" among "the sons of God." 

For this idea I am indebted to the apostle Paul, 
and that he may have due credit therefore, I will 
again call attention to his presentation of it and the 
argument by which he supports it. It is found in the 
seventh and eighth chapters of his letter to the Bo- 
mans. Having "before proved both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, that they are all under sin," and established the 
fact "that a man is justified by faith without the 
deeds of the law;" also, that "where sin abounded, 
grace did much more abound: that as sin hath 
reigned unto death, even so might grace reign 
through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
Christ our Lord." He proceeds in the sixth chapter 
to guard against the danger of yielding obedience to 
the flesh and becoming again the servants of sin: 
" Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, 
that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither 
yield ye your members as instruments of unright- 
eousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as 
those that are alive from the dead, and your members 
as instruments of righteousness unto God." Here 
the apostle distinguishes between " yourselves . . . 
that are alive from the dead" and "your mortal body," 
the " members " of which are to be used as instru- 
ments, either of righteousness or unrighteousness. 

In the seven tlr chapter he speaks of the warfare be- 
tween the flesh and the Spirit, on the part of those 
who, " being justified by faith, have peace with God 



92 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

through our Lord Jesus Christ" — that is, the con- 
stant effort which the Christian finds it necessary to 
put forth, in the strength of grace, to keep the body 
under and yield its members as instruments of right- 
eousness unto God. I am aware that many think 
that the apostle is here speaking of the awakened, 
but unconverted sinner. Dr. Boland says: "In the 
seventh chapter he describes the condition of an 
awakened sinner as he struggles w x ith the 'old man,' 
the ' carnal mind,' until he cries out: 'O wretched 
man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body 
of this death ? ' " ( " Problem of Methodism," p. 107. ) 
Dr. West teaches the same thing. ("The Old and 
New Man," p. 107.) So of many others, including 
Dr. Clarke and Mr. Wesley. One who dissents from 
the views of so many and such men should be pre- 
pared with a good reason for his seeming presump- 
tion. Whether this dissenter has such the reader is 
at liberty to decide for himself when he has given it 
a careful and candid perusal. 

The apostle opens the chapter with a figure, and 
reasons by analogy. "Know ye not, brethren, (for I 
speak to them that know the law) how that the law 
hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For 
the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law 
to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the hus- 
band be dead, she is loosed from the law of her hus- 
band." The idea plainly is, that the law reaches the 
woman, as a wife, only through the husband, and 
through him only while he lives, but as long as he 
lives. "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be 
married to another man, she shall be called an adul- 
teress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 93 

that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be 
married to another man." Mark, the death of the 
husband is necessary to the release of the wife so that 
she may, without guilt, marry another man. It is not 
the dead husband that is married again. Yet the 
apostle adds: "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are 
become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that 
ye should be married to another, even to him who is 
raised from the dead." - Now where is the analogy. 
and what does the illustration illustrate, if the dead 
is to be married, and not he which is released from 
the law by the death of another? The apostle was no 
bungling logician or rhetorician. He certainly was 
not guilty of such folly as is ascribed to him by such 
an interpretation of his language and of the illustra- 
tion he used. What he means here by "ye also are 
become dead to the law " is expressed in the sixth 
verse thus: "But now we are delivered from the law, 
that being dead wherein ice were held." The analo- 
gy is here brought out. There is that through which, 
while it lives, the law reaches those who are bound 
thereto, and which must therefore die in order that 
they may be married " to him who is raised from the 
dead." 

Accept the double-self idea of the apostle, found 
in the "head" and "heel" of the original promise, 
and you will see the aptness of his illustration and 
the force of his logic, and be prepared for the conclu- 
sion to which he conducts us. The thing that, "be- 
ing dead," "we are delivered from" is original sin 
— the sin of Adam; which was, as to its guilt, taken 
away from man — the whole race — and forever, by Je- 
sus Christ, the second Adam, who " once in the end 



94 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

of the world hath appeared to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of himself." (Heb. ix. 26.) 

Let it be remembered that this sacrifice was as ef- 
ficacious when the promise was first given as when 
and after it was literally made in the death of Jesus 
on the Roman cross, for the bond of heaven, so to 
speak, was then executed on man's behalf, and he re- 
leased from the penalty which he had incurred by the 
transgression of the law. This seems to be the apos- 
tle's meaning in the passage jnst quoted, for he im- 
mediately adds: "And as it is appointed unto man 
once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ 
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto 
them that look for him shall he appear the second 
time without sin unto salvation." Physical death 
was not the natural and necessary result to man of the 
original sin nor the penalty inflicted for that sin. It 
was "appointed" by God in the reconditioning of 
man's relation to the law through the atonement 
made by Jesus Christ. Because of this appointment 
unto death giving man a mortal probation in which 
to develop moral character, by the help of grace, in 
the effort necessary to control the appetites and pas- 
sions of the physical body — which, because of the in- 
firmities which are inseparable from a state of mor- 
tality, tend to sinful and ruinous excesses — and yield 
its members as instruments of righteousness unto 
God, "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of 
many!' He not only took away "the sin of the 
world" — original sin — but, in compensation for the 
weaknesses accompanying the mortality to which men 
were appointed and because of which they are more 
liable to personal transgressions, he provided also for 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 95 

the pardon of personal sins. " Surely lie hath borne 
our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did es- 
teem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was 
bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our 
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are 
healed." 

Continuing the argument on the double-self idea, 
the apostle says: "For that which I do, I allow not: 
for what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that 
do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent 
unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more 
I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Here "sin 
that dwelleth in me " takes the place of, and explains, 
the "I" that does the thing that "I allow not." Of 
course the "I" that "no more" does the forbidden 
thing is not guilty. That the "I" explained to be 
"sin that dwelleth in me" is the flesh, the physical 
body, appears from the next verse: "For I know that 
in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." 
To emphasize the fact, he repeats (in verse 20) that 
" it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in 
me," and adds (verse 21): "I find then a law, that, 
when I would do good, evil is present with me." 
This, I presume, is and has been the experience of 
every man who, having given his heart, is striving to 
give his life to God. He ivills to do good, which he 
could not do if there were no evil to do; for willing to 
do good implies a choice between that and doing evil. 
"Evil is present with me" implies a temptation to the 
wrong, but it certainly does not necessarily imply a 
yielding to the temptation and doing the wrong. 
* For I delight in the law of God after the inward 



96 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

man [" Blessed is the man . . . whose delight is 
in the law of the Lord. . . . The ungodly are not 
so."]: but I see another law in my members, warring 
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into 
captivity to the law of sin which is in my mem- 
bers." Not absolutely bringing one, as an individ- 
ual, into captivity, but "warring" to that end, and 
accomplishing it in every case where the mind con- 
sents. When the capture is made, the warfare ceases. 
The apostle is not simply relating his personal expe- 
rience, but is laying down general principles the truth 
of which is attested by the experience of all who are 
warring for eternal life, of whom he is one. 

The warfare is so intense and continuous that he 
cries oiit: " O wretched man that I am! who shall de- 
liver me from the body of this death?" Here, it is 
generally supposed, he alludes to the custom of bind- 
ing a dead body — a literal corpse — to a living man. 
Allowing this to be true (of which we have never seen 
the proof), what, with the usual interpretation of the 
text, is the living and what the dead body? If it ap- 
plies to the unregenerate, it is the dead crying for de- 
liverance from the dead! for he is " dead in trespasses 
and in sins." But what is the dead body from which 
he longs for deliverance? It cannot be sin; for, in 
that case, sin seems terribly alive, and the life of sin 
is the death of the sinner. Paul says: " Sin revived, 
and I died." The " I," the " wretched man," who cries 
for deliverance, is alive, but is liable to and fears 
death as a consequence of the presence and influence 
of the dead body to which he is bound. 

But it may be asked: Is a Christian a "wretched 
man?" For answer, I refer the reader, supposing 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 97 

him to be a Christian, to his own experience, if he has 
ever been sorely tempted since his conversion. "Ev- 
ery man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his 
own lust, and enticed." He does not desire to do 
wrong, to sin. It is his desire and purpose to do 
right, to worship and to serve God; but " the law of 
sin" which is in his "members" wars against the law 
of his mind, to bring it (the mind) into captivity to 
the law of sin — that is, to get the consent of the mind 
to do the wrong, but desired thing; to walk after the 
flesh and become the bondslave of sin. And " when 
lust hath conceived [the purpose to obey the law in 
the ' members'], it bringeth forth sin [the overt 
act]; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth 
death." It is this struggle for the mastery over the 
flesh — the body of death — with conscious inability to 
effect it in his own strength, that extorts the cry and 
inquiry: " Who shall deliver me?" And it is his rec- 
ognition of the source of his strength, and his faith 
in him through whom deliverance comes, that enables 
him to answer his own question: "I thank God [it 
comes] through Jesus Christ our Lord." This lan- 
guage is prophetic, and looks to final deliverance 
from the body of death through him by whose grace 
we are enabled to resist temptation and "walk not 
after the flesh, but after the Spirit." 

"So then with the mind I myself serve the law of 
God; but with the flesh the law of sin." More cor- 
rectly: "I myself, the mind, serve the law of God; 
but the flesh the law of sin." This accords with: "It 
is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth 
no good thing." It also accords with the conclusion 
7 



98 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

readied and announced: "There is therefore now no 
condemnation to them which are in Christ." The re- 
ceived rendering of this text makes it self-contradict- 
ory and absurd, and makes the apostle declare an im- 
possible thing: the mind is the conscious and responsi- 
ble self. What it does, therefore, with the flesh as an 
instrument, it does and is responsible for. No man who 
serves "the law of sin" with the flesh can, in any real 
and true sense, be said to serve the law of God at the 
same time. It would be to choose and do the evil and 
the good at the same time, instead of choosing be- 
tween the two. If I choose and do the right in spite 
of the presence of the "law in my members, warring 
against the law of my mind," I do not do the wrong; 
and, however severe the temptation through which I 
have passed, "there is therefore now no condemna- 
tion" to me, because I "walk not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit." In that case, "the law of the Spirit 
of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the 
law of sin and death." But "the body of this death" 
is still upon me; for "if Christ be in you, the body 
is [still] dead because of sin; but the spirit is life 
[alive] because of righteousness," in walking after 
the Spirit. The plain meaning of which is, the spirit 
which was dead in trespasses and sins, being alive to 
God through faith in Jesus Christ, is not condemned 
with and for the sin in the flesh (the depraved and 
vicious appetites and passions of the mortal body), 
while it does not consent and yield obedience to its 
demands and thus use the members of the body as in- 
struments of unrighteousness unto sin. On the other 
hand, "if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds 
of the body, ye shall live" — forever and as a whole, 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 99 

spirit and body. "For as many as are led by the 
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have 
not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but 
ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and 
if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs 
with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that 
we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that 
the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to 
be compared with the glory which shall be revealed 
in us." 

To be a child is to be an heir; and to be a child of 
God is to be a "joint heir with Christ." But we do 
not enter upon the inheritance in this life; we only 
have an earnest of it. This is the militant state. We 
are yet in the enemy's land. We must, therefore, 
"fight the good fight of faith," in order that we may 
"lay hold on eternal life" and receive "the crown of 
righteousness, which," saith Paul, "the Lord, the 
righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to 
me only, but unto all them also that love his appear- 
ing." In this fight we are called to "endure hard- 
ness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." "The last 
enemy to be destroyed is death;" and faithfulness to 
God sometimes gives the enemy a seeming advantage, 
in that it cuts off many days and leads to an early 
grave. But he that is "faithful unto death" — that is, 
faithful though it result in physical death — shall re- 
ceive "a crown of life." Hence the apostle says, "if 
so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also 
glorified together;" and Jesus says, "Ye shall be 
hated of all nations for my name's sake. . . . But 



100 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be 
saved." 

"Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the 
Lord delivereth him out of them all." Not, however, 
always in this life. They are sometimes the result of 
devotion and faithfulness to Christ; but in all such 
cases his grace sustains the sufferer and causes his 
afflictions to work out for him a far more exceeding 
and eternal weight of glory, to which "the sufferings 
of this present time are not worthy to be compared; " 
"for the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth 
for the manifestation of the sons of God." By 
"creature " here is evidently meant what the apostle 
elsewhere calls the "natural body:" "It is sown a 
natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." By 
"waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God" 
he means, as is developed in the twenty-third verse, 
"waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of 
the body." "For the creature [the physical body] 
was made subject to vanity, not willingly [voluntarily], 
but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in 
hope; because the creature [body] itself also shall be 
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glo- 
rious liberty of the children of God." 

What can be meant here by " the creature itself," 
but the "mortal body," which is to be "delivered 
from the bondage of corruption [in the grave] into 
the glorious liberty of the children of God?" In 
our spirits we " have [already] received the Spirit of 
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father;" and the 
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we 
are [now] the children of God." But notwithstanding 
this relation and the fact that Christ is in us the hope 



THE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 101 

of glory, "the body is [yet] dead [in the bondage of 
corruption] because of sin." It is, however, destined 
to be delivered from this bondage and, if the Spirit 
of him that raised Christ from the dead dwell in us, 
"into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 
For we know that the whole creation [creature] groan- 
eth and travaileth in pain together until now. And 
not only they [so], but ourselves [the conscious, spir- 
itual self] also, which have the first fruits of the 
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, 
waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of 
our body" from death and the corruption of the 
grave. 

The sum of what we have said is this: Regenera- 
tion, adoption, quickening — all refer to the same 
change, the result of which is childship to God; and 
all are applied to both the spirit and the body of man. 
It takes both (spirit and body) to constitute man; 
and the adoption of both is necessary to constitute 
completed redemption in Christ Jesus — complete re- 
covery from the results of Adam's sin to his posterity. 
To the spirit it comes in this life, but only to those 
who have alienated themselves from God, the Father, 
by personal transgression of his law and who are 
therefore "dead in trespasses and sins;" for all are 
born partakers of the life, as well as of the death, of 
Jesus Christ, and cannot need to be quickened except 
they first die, spiritually; cannot be adopted, except 
they first forfeit the child relationship. To the body, 
which, in the reconditioning necessary to redemption, 
was appointed to death, it will come in the final res- 
urrection, "in the regeneration when the Son of 
man shall sit in the throne of his glory." To the 



102 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

sinner, these constitute the first and second blessings, 
receiving which he will be perfectly a child of God 
and a perfectly saved man. Between these two there 
is, ordinarily, room for an indefinite number of bless- 
ings, and for growth, in the spiritual man, unto the 
■perfect stature of moral manhood. 



CHAPTEE X. 

Extremes Meet. 

There are some who teach that we cannot live 
without sin in this world, but that every man sins 
every day of his natural life; and this they affirm of 
all Christians. And yet, strange to tell, they teach 
that a soul cannot sin after it is converted — "born 
again;" that the soul is converted, but the body is 
not, and that the body, being " flesh even yet," must 
continue to sin as long as it lives, but that the spirit 
is in no way responsible and incurs no guilt for what 
the body does! They deny the possibility of attain- 
ing to " sinless perfection " in this life, and yet affirm 
and teach it as a fact accomplished in the case of ev- 
ery sinner saved by the grace of God in Christ Jesus! 
The physical body is as incapable of sin as is the 
dust of the earth from which it was made, and to 
which it is destined to return ; and if the spirit does 
not, and cannot sin after it is regenerated, " sinless 
perfection" is the state into which the renewing, 
adopting Spirit introduces every one whom he consti- 
tutes a child of God. 

This, however, could hardly be called Christian 
perfection, unless to become a perfect Christian is to 
be robbed of moral agency and constituted a mere 
machine, or a brute that is incapable of moral action. 
Nor was the theory introduced here for the purpose 
of arguing against it. It is so monstrously absurd 

(103) 



104 TfllE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

that, to the mind that after deliberate and candid 
thought can hold and teach it, it would be a waste of 
time to reason. The only use designed to be made 
of it in this connection is to call attention to the fact 
that it licenses men to sin as long as they live, with 
the hope that deliverance will come in the hour and 
article of death; and to show that the "second bless- 
ing' ' theory of sanctification logically issues in the 
same result. 

If a man may be a child of God and yet, until he 
receive the "second blessing," must, as Mr. Wesley 
says, " be content to remain full of sin till death; and, 
if so, he must remain guilty till death, continually de- 
serving punishment," does it not follow that in death 
he will be emptied of sin and acquitted of his guilt, 
in order to his entering upon the inheritance of eter- 
nal life ? And does it not also follow that, while holi- 
ness is both a duty and a privilege, it is not necessary 
to becoming and continuing a child of God, and to 
the faithfulness which has promise of "a crown of 
life? " If a man is taught, and comes to believe, that 
he may be a child of God and at the same time " full 
of sin" and "deserving punishment," but that when 
he comes to die he will be sanctified and taken to 
heaven, he is more than likely to " be content to re- 
main full of sin till death." The two theories are 
practically the same, though apparently very unlike. 

They agree in the start and reach the same logical 
result, and only differ in the directions in which they 
diverge from the right line — the line of scriptural 
truth — in their efforts to reach a desired and predes- 
tined goal. They, with a few exceptions, agree in be- 
lieving and teaching that entailed depravity is that 



EXTREMES MEET. 105 

which renders the new birth a necessity, and that in- 
fants, if they die without personal sin, must and will 
be regenerated in the article of death in order to fit 
them for heaven. They practically agree as to the 
effect of regeneration upon the adult, in that they 
both teach that regeneration leaves its subject "full 
of sin." 

They differ in that one teaches that this sin must 
remain until death, that man cannot live without sin 
in this world; and the other that he may be freed 
from all sin, original and personal, and live without 
sin, but that if he does not he will be sanctified when 
he comes to die — that is, cleansed from original or 
" inbred sin," and fitted for a home in heaven. They 
are alike inconsistent and self-contradictory in that 
they teach that the thing which renders regeneration 
necessary remains after the work of regeneration is 
accomplished! It ought to be self-evident to every 
thinking mind that, if the presence of original sin 
renders regeneration necessary, to regenerate is to de- 
stroy, or take away, original sin; and equally so that, 
if destroyed in the new birth, no "second blessing" 
is required to destroy it. It is also undeniable that, 
if the necessity for the new birth is not found in 
original sin — entailed depravity — the necessity does 
not exist except in case, and as the result, of personal 
sin; and that, therefore, infants do not need to be 
"born again." 

On the other hand, if the necessity for the new 
birth is the result of personal sin, and the sin is re- 
peated after regeneration, the same results will fol- 
low, and the new birth will again be necessary. Ei- 
ther, then, sinless perfection, after conversion, is a 



106 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

necessity (a contradiction in terms, for that which is 
necessitated has no moral quality), or the possibility 
of apostasy is a fact. Tea, more : If the necessity for 
the new birth is the result of personal sin, it did not 
exist before the sin was committed; for an effect can- 
not exist before its cause. And if the necessity did 
not exist, it can only be because they (infants, who had 
not sinned) were already "the children of God: and 
if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs 
with Christ. " Here we reach ultimate truth, Bible 
truth; and if we have any respect for logic, the logic 
of facts, we are compelled to accept the conclusion 
that the necessity for the new birth is the work of 
apostasy, and exists only in cases of individuals who 
by personally sinning have apostatized from the di- 
vine favor. No moral being, in that which consti- 
tutes him such, needs or can ever need to be " born 
again " until, acting as a moral agent, he creates the 
necessity by " the transgression of the law," by per- 
sonal sinning. 

Many who oppose the baptizing of infants do so on 
the ground that they are depraved, and that depravity 
must not be taken into the Church. They must, 
therefore, believe that regeneration destroys entailed 
depravity; for otherwise the converted adult would 
be as unfit for Church membership and baptism as 
the infant, and their argument would be as fatal to 
"believer's baptism" as it is intended and thought to 
be to pedobaptism. Certainly none will contend that 
the believing adult is " born again," receives the Spir- 
it of adoption, and is made a joint heir with Christ 
without the pardon of his personal sins. And if 
both original and personal sins and their defilements 



EXTREMES MEET. 107 

are taken away in regeneration, the man who is born 
again is freed from all sin; and, nnless to sin again be 
a necessity (in which case it would not be sin), "sin- 
less perfection" thereafter is not only possible, but a 
duty and a privilege to every child of God. 

If only personal sins and their defilements are re- 
moved in justification and the new birth, then regen- 
eration simply places its subject where he was before 
he sinned; and if such a change is necessary, in the 
case of a personal sinner, to make him a fit subject 
for baptism and for membership in the Church, it 
can be so only because by those sins he unfitted him- 
self for that to enjoy which he must have them par- 
doned, taken away. And if he must be restored to 
that condition from which he was taken by sin, in 
order to make him a fit subject for baptism, he must 
have been a fit subject before he sinned. But this by 
the way. Let us return to the subject under more 
immediate consideration. 

The relation of infants to Christ and the atonement 
is the subject of first consideration in studying the 
plan of salvation; and until this is properly under- 
stood it will be impossible to understand its practical 
workings in the recovery of personal sinners to the 
favor of God in this life, and the completion of re- 
demption in the final crowning with eternal life in 
heaven. If infants are in a state of salvation — that 
is, in such relation to Christ as the Saviour of the 
world that, dying in infancy, they are taken to heaven — 
then none are in a lost condition except those who by 
personal sin have forfeited the divine favor, who 
have personally apostatized; those who have " fallen 
from grace." And if this be true, their salvation, so 



108 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

far as it is completed in this life, is simply and only 
restoration to the state and relation which they sus- 
tained before they sinned, minus the effect of their 
own sins upon the physical man in rendering the re- 
sistance of temptation more difficult. To do more 
than this would be to place a premium upon sin, 
which, of course, God could not do. 

If this restoration is accomplished by means of re- 
generation, or the new birth, then the necessity for 
the new birth is not found in the existence of original 
sin — entailed depravity — and cannot be predicated of 
infants; for to do so would be to affirm, either that 
infants are not in a saved state, or that regeneration 
is necessary to those who are already saved; that is, 
that the children of God need to be born again, born 
of the Spirit, in order to constitute them his children! 
If entailed depravity does not furnish the necessity 
for regeneration, then either infants do not need to be 
regenerated, or the necessity for regeneration is 
neither found in sin nor in the effects of sin, original 
or personal; for they have no personal sins to beget 
in them this necessity. 

If regeneration is made necessary by anything in- 
herited from Adam, call it depravity or what you 
please, it cannot be conditioned to man upon repent- 
ance and faith, or upon any voluntary act or move- 
ment upon the part of those who need it, whether 
before or after the commission of personal sins. To 
do so would be an act of absolute injustice, of which 
it is impossible to suppose God capable. To say that, 
unless he comply with some arbitrarily required con- 
dition in order to the removal of what was inherited 
by the appointment of God, man — any man — will be 



EXTREMES MEET. 109 

damned, is to charge God with punishing his creatures 
for being what he made them! It is difficult to con- 
ceive how the idea that God gave being to his crea- 
tures in a state of condemnation ever entered the 
mind of a rational being. But that it has been per- 
petuated in all the Churches and is taught and de- 
fended by theologians of almost every school is mar- 
velous beyond all power of expression. It is so con- 
tradictory of reason, so repulsive to our sense of jus- 
tice, and so destitute of support by the Scriptures 
that, but for the stubborn fact of its presence, one 
could hardly believe it possible of entertainment by 
a thoughtful mind. It is because they begin by ac- 
cepting as true this unphilosophical and unscriptural 
idea, that the extremes of which w^e speak, however 
divergent on their journey, meet at a common termi- 
nus and agree that in death the work of preparation 
for heaven is completed; provided (according to one 
of them) it has not been done in a special "second 
blessing" subsequent to regeneration and previous to 
the hour of death. Thus it is seen that they who 
deny the possibility of being saved from all sin in 
this life, and they who teach that only by a special 
" second blessing" after regeneration such deliver- 
ance is possible, practically agree in that which, by 
the force of irresistible logic, licenses Christians to 
sin as long as they live in this world! 

"Being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ" because all our sins 
are pardoned. The pardon of less than all of one's 
sins would not secure peace with God; nor is it true 
that any one is "justified by faith" whose sins are 
not all pardoned. If sin is not repeated, peace will 



110 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

continue and pardon will never again be necessary. 
To say that one cannot live without sinning is to say 
that he cannot sin; for no man is or can be responsi- 
ble for what he cannot help, and if he cannot avoid 
sinning it can only be because he cannot will to do 
right in refusing to do wrong. 

Any theory, therefore, that teaches that man must 
sin after he has been pardoned and regenerated, either 
until released by death, or by a second special bless- 
ing called sanctilication, necessarily proceeds upon 
the idea that he cannot keep from sinning because he 
cannot sin — that is, because he is no longer a moral 
agent! If he can keep from sinning, and does not, he 
will, of course, need a " second blessing," a second 
pardoning, and must seek it as he did the first, by 
repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. If he does not sin; but, availing himself of 
the grace of God proffered in Jesus Christ, resists 
temptation to wrong, he not only remains in a state 
of peace with God, but is blessed w T ith an increase of 
faith and love — grows " in grace, and in the knowl- 
edge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 

This of the spirit. The body, as we have seen, will 
be regenerated in the final resurrection; and if by the 
grace of God we use its members here as instruments 
of righteousness unto God, it will receive the adop- 
tion for which we wait, and be fashioned like unto 
his glorious body who became the first fruits of them 
that sleep. Sin dwells in the body only when, and 
because, it dwells in the spirit that tenants the body, 
and finds expression only through and by means of 
the body. If it dwell in the spirit, though it may not 
find occasion to express itself, it is the cause of con- 



EXTKEMES MEET. Ill 

demnation: "'Whosoever hateth his brother is a mur- 
derer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal 
life abiding in him." One may be guilty of murder, 
then, without ever killing anybody; and so of every 
other sin that finds expression by means of the body, 
or any member of it. 

On the other hand, no effect resulting from the 
movements of a body not directed by a sane and re- 
sponsible spirit that tenants it can be catalogued as 
sin. For instance, the killing of a man by an idiot or 
insane person is not characterized as murder; neither 
is the accidental and unintentional killing of another 
by a sane man. So of all other "works of the flesh." 
It requires the controlling action of the responsible 
tenant of a human body to constitute its movements 
sinful; and the idea that a man can be innocent and 
acceptable to God in his spirit and at the same time 
committing sin with his body is contradictory of rea- 
son, common sense, consciousness, and the Bible. 

Life is a pilgrimage, and through an enemy's land. 
Death is its terminus and the gateway into the Ce- 
lestial City, to those who escape captivity or who, 
having been captured, have accepted release and fol- 
lowed their Deliverer faithfully to the end. To the 
rest it is the end of probation and the door of en- 
trance into wretchedness and hopeless despair. It is 
a warfare, in which "the last enemy that shall be de- 
stroyed is death." This enemy is a terror to all, until 
his sting is extracted. "The sting of death is sin; 
and the strength of sin is the law." "But sin is not 
imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death 
reigned from Adam to Moses, who is the figure of 
him that was to come, even over them that had not 



112 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." * 
That is, the sting of death affects only those who per- 
sonally transgress the law; and none can do that 
until capable of receiving and obeying the law. Death 
is already conquered for the infantile world, so that 
to them he has no sting; and can never have any 
until by personal sin they furnish it. 

Though robbed of his sting, death is not destroyed, 
and will not be until the grave is robbed of its victory 
and this mortal shall have put on immortality. De- 
liverance from sin and its effects upon the spiritual 
man (spiritual death) is, to the sinner, deliverance 
from the sting of death. This deliverance comes 
through faith in him who, because "the children are 
partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise 
took part of the same; that through death he might 
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the 
devil; and deliver them, w T ho through fear of death 
were all their lifetime subject to bondage." From 
this bondage to the fear of death we are delivered 
when we receive " the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry, Abba, Father," and "the Spirit itself beareth 
witness with our spirit that we are the children of 
God." But death itself — physical death — will not 
be destroyed until "the creature itself [the body] 
also shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- 
tion into the glorious liberty of the children of God." 

Physical death is appointed by God to be the ter- 
minus of a probationary state wherein man, through 
the grace of God in Jesus Christ, may prepare for a 
home in heaven. Spiritual death is the effect of per- 

*I have transposed this text in order to give its meaning. 
Moses is the figure of him that was to come, not Adam. 



EXTREMES MEET. 113 

sonal sin upon the spirit that commits it. " The soul 
that sinneth, it shall die," is equivalent to, u i£ ye live 
after the flesh, ye shall die." " To be carnally minded 
[that is, to mind, to "live after, the flesh"] is 
death:" "but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the 
deeds of the body, ye shall live." If depravity, " orig- 
inal sin," is not located in the body, why warn the 
regenerated, adopted Spirit against obedience to the 
flesh as the great danger to which it is exposed in this 
mortal probationary state? "Let not sin therefore 
reign in [or by] your mortal body, that ye should obey 
it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your mem- 
bers as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but 
yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive 
from the dead, and your members [of the body] as 
instruments of righteousness unto God." It seems to 
be the pressure of mortal corruption upon the im- 
mortal and renewed spirit that endangers the children 
of God who, though heirs, have not yet entered upon 
their inheritance, but are to suffer with Christ in 
order to be hereafter glorified with him. 

If both spirit and body were renewed in what we 
call regeneration, the new birth, there would be com- 
plete restoration to original perfection, and entailed 
depravity would be an impossible thing. As the 
spirit only is quickened, it must, by the grace of God, 
mortify therefore the " members which are upon the 
earth" — crucify "the flesh with the affections and 
lusts." 

An effect cannot precede its cause; nor can it be- 
come the cause of that which produced it. Spiritual 
death, therefore, cannot precede the sinning act in 
that which is the subject of it; nor can it ever become 
8 



114 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

the cause of that act. It follows that, whatever of 
depravity is entailed upon the children of men, it does 
not constitute spiritual death, and cannot cause the 
act that produces it. To go to the root of the matter: 
Death, whatever its producing cause, is a resultant 
state to that which was once alive. It is impossible to 
conceive of a dead human body that was never alive. 
It is equally impossible to conceive of a human spirit 
as "dead in trespasses and sins"— the only death 
predicable of a spirit capable of moral character — 
that was not once without sin — that is, alive to God 
through Jesus Christ, and with the life that was in 
him. That can never have died which never lived; 
and that which is dead cannot be restored to life, 
unless it was once alive and died. Infants cannot, 
therefore, be dead in sin unless, as infants, they were 
once spiritually alive; and this they never were, if 
they inherit spiritual death. 

Thus we see that, in the new creation, every human 
being begins his personal existence in a probationary 
state and in a probationary relation to him who has 
placed him on trial. It is impossible for us to know 
at what age the trial begins in any given case, or to 
lay down a rule which shall be general in its applica- 
tion. We know, however, that trial proper does not, 
cannot, begin in any case until development to the 
point of moral responsibility in the exercise of moral 
agency is reached. Sin is impossible of commission 
except by a moral agent; and a sinner who has never 
sinned is an impossible conception. Infants are 
moral beings, but must develop into moral agents 
before they can sin, and must commit sin before they 
can be classed with sinners or be truthfully said to be 



EXTREMES MEET. 115 

"dead in trespasses and sins." They are also spirit- 
ual beings, or they could not be moral beings and 
developed into moral agents. As spiritual beings 
they are either dead or alive, for spiritual existence 
without either life or death is absolutely inconceiv- 
able. As they cannot be dead without having first 
been alive, and cannot have died without having for- 
feited life, and cannot have forfeited life without 
sinning, and cannot have sinned without moral 
agency, and cannot have been moral agents without 
the power of intelligent choice; it follows that no in- 
fant can be spiritually dead who has not developed 
sufficiently in intellect to be able to choose intelli- 
gently between good and evil, and who has not made 
choice of the evil Thus it is demonstrated that infants 
are not dead in sin; and if not, they are "alive to 
God through Jesus Christ our Lord." 

God has placed man in this world as a probationer 
in view of promoting him to honor and wealth in his 
family above. He is on trial; and, if "faithful unto 
death," "when he is tried, he shall receive the crown 
of life which the Lord hath promised to them that 
love him." Did the Lord place him here a child of 
the devil? If a child at all, in its spiritual being, the 
infant is either the child of God or the child of the 
devil. Whose child is it? I answer: His who made 
it, who created it. If a creature of God, and a child, 
it is a child of God, unless God can be supposed to 
create children of the devil as such, the mere suppo- 
sition of which would be blasphemous. 

That some of the creatures of God are children of 
the devil is not denied or questioned, but they were 
not created such. They have been seduced from vir- 



116 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

tue's paths, and through their own personal sins have 
forfeited their place in the family and kingdom of 
God, and become the children of the devil. But as 
children of the devil they are not "such" as they were 
when Jesus said of them : # " Of such is the kingdom of 
heaven." They begin children of God in their spir- 
itual being, but subjects of mortality in their phys- 
ical bodies. The contest, in the trial to which they 
are subjected in this pilgrimage, is between the flesh 
and the Spirit. "The body is dead because of sin; 
but the Spirit is life [alive J because of righteous- 
ness." If they live after the flesh, they shall die: 
but if they through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of 
the body, they shall live — that is, if they yield to the 
temptations which assail them through the flesh and 
live in the indulgence and gratification of the fleshly 
appetites and passions, the spirit will partake of the 
corruption of the body and, like it, die; but if they 
through the Spirit of God subdue and control the 
movements of the body and use its members as in- 
struments of righteousness unto God, they shall live 
forever, and the body itself shall finally be " raised a 
spiritual body " and with the spirit be crowned with 
eternal life in heaven. 

Does the reader ask: "What has all this to do 
with the ' second blessing' theory of sanctification ? " 
I answer: Much every way, chiefly this: It de- 
stroys the very foundation on which it rests, and ren- 
ders it impossible to begin an argument in its sup- 
port. If there is no sin in the infant, no inherited 
depravity that acts as a bar to its acceptance with 
God and which must be eradicated in case it should 
die (but before it dies!), in order to fit it for heaven; 



EXTREMES MEET. 117 

it cannot inherit such sin or depravity after it attains 
to personal responsibility. And if, as we are told 
(by Dr. Carradine, p. 26), "regeneration is a new 
birth . . . the cleansing away of personal sins 
and the removal of that depravity that results from 
personal transgressions," then there is no room for 
the "second blessing" — nothing left to be accom- 
plished by it. 

Not only so, but it is equally fatal to the theory of 
those who, opposing the " second blessing " theory, * 
contend that entailed depravity furnishes the neces- 
sity for and is therefore removed by regeneration. 
Regeneration and the new birth are used by them of 
the same thing; and their theory compels them either 
to deny that infants are children of God, or to affirm 
that God's children " must be born again " to consti- 
tute them such! 

On either hypothesis — that entailed depravity is de- 
stroyed in regeneration or by a second blessing there- 
after-— there is a question of some importance, to 
Methodists at least, involved in the doctrine of the 
possibility of apostasy, which I am anxious should be 
answered by those who hold these theories — viz. : How 
can entailed depravity, when once destroyed, ever be 
gotten back? To apostatize is to relapse into the 
state which necessitates the new birth; and, if so, it 
will again be necessary. The question is : How does 
he get back his inherited depravity if it was destroyed 
in regeneration? Or, if destroyed by a "second 
blessing," after regeneration, does the forfeiture of 
" sanctification " involve only the recovery of his lost 
inheritance — depravity — and leave him in a justified 
state, still a child of God, though unfitted for heaven ! 



118 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

In either case apostasy involves the idea of a second 
time inheriting a depravity that can only be entailed 
by the natural, physical birth! Nicodemus's question 
(recorded in John iii. 4) would, it seems to me, be emi- 
nently in place just here; for there is no other imagi- 
nable way to get back that lost inheritance except 
that suggested by him of being born again ! 



CHAPTER XL 

Christian Perfection. 

If, as we have seen, regeneration is a quickening, 
a resurrection; and resurrection is purification; so 
that every redeemed spirit — every one that is born of 
God— is cleansed, is purified — saved "by the washing 
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; " 
and every such one is sanctified, what is it to " go on 
to perfection?" Laying aside prejudice and pre- 
conceived ideas concerning this subject, let us exam- 
ine it in the light of the Scriptures, in the fear of 
God, and with an eye to his glory, " whose we are and 
whom we serve." 

Perfection is a superlative term, and does not admit 
of comparison except by limitation. If a thing is 
perfect, it cannot be more perfect; for whatever is 
added to the perfect thing detracts from the perfec- 
tion of that thing. Perfection is absolute, and the 
thing of which it is truthfully predicated can neither 
be added to nor subtracted from, in that which con- 
stitutes its perfection, without destroying that per- 
fection. All that can be meant, therefore, by the 
terms "more" and "most " perfect is, more and most 
nearly perfect; and to use them otherwise is to limit 
the meaning of the word " perfect" to something less 
than perfection. 

To be a Christian is to be like Christ, and to be a 
perfect Christian is to be perfectly like Christ. Of 

(119) 



120 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

course we mean in that which constitutes moral char- 
acter. To be a Christian, then, is to be morally good; 
and to be a perfect Christian is to be perfect in mor- 
al goodness. We therefore define Christian perfec- 
tion to be: The perfection of moral manhood after the 
pattern furnished us in the person of Jesus Christ. 
This perfection is attainable only through the grace 
of God in Jesus Christ. He is at once the model and 
the medium of approach to it. "God was in Christ, 
reconciling the world unto himself," that Christ 
might be in us " the hope of glory; " " which hope we 
have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and. stead- 
fast, and which entereth into that within the vail; 
whither the forerunner is foi; us entered, even Jesus, 
made a high priest forever after the order of Mel- 
chisedec." 

To be without God is to be without hope in the 
world. Jesus Christ is the only medium of access 
which God has to man or man to God. To reject 
Jesus Christ, therefore, is to reject God and banish 
all hope. This is the condition of every sinner in 
the world, especially every one in a gospel-enlight- 
ened land. He is "the true Light, which lighteth 
every man that cometh into the world." "He that 
believeth on him is not condemned: but he that 
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath 
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of 
God. And this is the condemnation, that light is 
come into the world, and men loved darkness rather 
than light, because their deeds were evil." The in- 
carnation of the divine — that is, " God manifest in the 
flesh" — is the hope of the world; and the rejection of 
this hope, through unbelief, is the condemnation of 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 121 

the unbeliever and mars the work of God wrought in 
the new creation. The restoration of this hope to 
and in man is the work of God in the regeneration of 
the sinner, and the attainment of the thing hoped for 
will be the finishing of the work of redemption in 
the final recovery of the saved from the consequences 
of the original transgression. This attainment is the 
perfection to which we are mainly urged throughout 
• the Scriptures. Having this hope to which we are 
begotten of God " by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
from the dead," whose resurrection is a pledge and 
"first fruit "of the final harvest, we are to cultivate 
and encourage it by growing "in grace, and in the 
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ," "unto a per- 
fect man, unto the measure of the stature of the full- 
ness of Christ." 

Christian perfection is one thing, and the perfec- 
tion of redeemed humanity, to be consummated in 
the final resurrection, is quite another. Ignoring 
this fact, and using the scriptures which apply to the 
latter in support of a theory touching the former, has 
resulted in much confusion and unnecessary, if not 
hurtful, disputation concerning the doctrine of per- 
fect love. 

Freedom from sin does not constitute Christian 
perfection; for, as Mr. Wesley says, "even babes 
in Christ are so far perfect as not to commit sin." 
Again he says: "A Christian is so far perfect as not 
to commit sin. This is the glorious privilege of 
every Christian; yea, though he be but a babe in 
Christ." And a greater than Wesley has said: 
" Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." 
Of course every " babe in Christ" is "born of God." 



122 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

The difference between a babe, a newly adopted child 
of God, and one who has attained to perfection in 
love is not, then, to be found in the fact that one sins 
and the other does not. Neither does it consist in 
the removal of " original sin " or entailed depravity. 
For, as has been, I think, abundantly proved, that 
is never removed in this life. The guilt of original 
sin was never entailed, and could not be. Even if 
otherwise it could have been, it was rendered impos- 
sible by the atonement made by Jesus Christ, "who 
his own self bore our sins in his own body on the 
tree." All the depravity inherited from Adam is 
that which inheres in the physical body, and which 
is inseparable from a state of morality. How this 
affects the moral and immortal man has already been 
shown. That we are not delivered from this entail- 
ment, in this life, is also clearly taught by Mr. Wes- 
ley. He says: " We secondly believe that there is no 
such perfection in this life as implies an entire de- 
liverance, either from ignorance or mistake, in things 
not essential to salvation, or from manifold tempta- 
tions, or from numberless infirmities, wherewith the 
corruptible body more or less presses down the soul." 
He also says: "Now mistakes, and whatever infirmi- 
ties necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the 
body, are no way contrary to love; nor therefore, in 
the Scripture sense, sin." 

"Original sin" in the descendants of Adam — that 
is, entailed depravity — is neither punishable nor par- 
donable: nor is any personal violation of law which 
is necessitated by such depravity, for such violations 
of law are not sins. Here again I am happy to have 
the indorsement of Mr. Wesley: "Not only sin, 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 123 

properly so called [that is, a voluntary transgres- 
sion of a known law], but sin improperly so called 
[that is, an involuntary transgression of divine 
law, known or unknown], needs atoning blood." 
(" Plain Account," as published by J. H. Padgett 
& Co., 1889, page 223.) It is certainly proper to 
call that sin which is sin; and if anything is " im- 
properly so called, it is not sin. If the thing "im- 
properly " called sin "needs atoning blood," the need 
is already supplied, and the supply is not contingent 
upon anything to be done by us. Now if "even 
babes in Christ are so far perfect as not to commit 
sin," and we are not, as Wesley says, "to be freed 
from actual mistakes, till this mortal puts on im- 
mortality (p. 221), what is left in a regenerated 
person — a child of God — to be taken out or destroyed 
by a special "second blessing?" Can any one tell? 
It is not "sin, properly so called" — the "actual mis- 
takes" "and whatever infirmities necessarily form 
the corruptible state of the body" — is not to be 
gotten rid of "till this mortal puts on immortality." 
Is there something in man which is neither sin, mis- 
takes, nor infirmities, to destroy which a " second ' 
special " blessing " is necessary, after one is regener- 
ated and has the Spirit itself bearing witness with 
his spirit that he is a child of God? If so, what is 
it, and whence did it come? 

Mr. Wesley, in his sermons "On Sin in Be- 
lievers" and the "Repentance of Believers," not 
only assumed that there is, but made an earnest and 
labored effort to prove that there is, and to define 
what it is. If he failed, it was only because he at- 
tempted the impossible. That he did fail can, I 



124 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

think, be easily made appear. He says: "We allow 
that the state of a justified person is inexpressibly 
great and glorious. He is born again, not of blood, 
nor of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God! He 
is a child of God, a member of Christ, and heir of 
the kingdom of heaven. The peace of God, which 
passeth all understanding, keepeth his heart and 
mind in Christ Jesus. His very body is a 'temple 
of the Holy Ghost,' and a ' habitation of God through 
the Spirit' He is washed, he is sanctified. His 
heart is purified by faith; he is cleansed 'from the 
corruption that is in the world;' 'the love of God is 
shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is 
given unto him.' And so long as he walketh in love 
(which he may always do) he worships God in spirit 
and in truth. He keepeth the commandments of 
God, and doeth those things that are pleasing in his 
sight; so exercising himself as to ' have a conscience 
void of offense, toward God and toward man; ' and he 
has power both over outward and inward sin, even 
from the moment he is justified." 

Let the reader closely study that paragraph and; 
admitting its truth, answer candidly and to his own 
satisfaction this question: What is there in the per- 
son or character there described of which guilt can 
be predicated, which is "continually deserving pun- 
ishment," and which must be repented of in order to 
its removal? Can it be truthfully said of a person 
answering to the character there described that he is 
"full of sin," that there is "guiltiness or desert of 
punishment whereof " he is "still conscious?" And 
yet this, all this, is precisely what must be affirmed, 
and proved to be true, in order to sustain the "sec- 



CHKISTIAN PERFECTION. 125 

ond blessing" theory, in advocacy of which the two 
sermons referred to were written. 

Of course the " sin " of which he is " full " and the 
" guiltiness" " whereof " he is "still conscious" can- 
not refer to the sin and guiltiness from which he was 
delivered when he was justified and regenerated. It 
will be well therefore, in this connection, first to in- 
quire: What sin was it from which he was justified, 
and from the defilement of which he was purified 
when he was regenerated — when he was "washed?" To 
answer this question correctly we have only to ascer- 
tain what it is that renders regeneration necessary; 
for, as we have before seen, whatever it is the exis- 
tence of which makes regeneration necessary, that it 
is that is removed or destroyed in and by regenera- 
tion. If, as Mr. Wesley teaches (sermon on the " New 
Birth"), "the foundation of the new birth" — that 
which renders it necessary is " the entire corruption 
of our nature," as a consequence of Adam's sin — that 
is, because "in Adam all died " all need to be " born 
again;" then, the new birth destroys that corruption, 
and the " second blessing " is not only unnecessary, 
but, absolutely impossible, unless the corruption is 
again entailed. If the necessity for the new birth is 
not found in the existence of "original sin," entailed 
depravity, then it must be found in the effects of 
personal sins; and, if so, infants do not need to be 
"born again." This I verily believe to be true and 
scriptural, as to the spirit. The body will have to be 
renewed, but that will be done in the resurrection at 
the last day, when this corruptible shall put on incor- 
ruption. 

Justification removes the guilt of sin, and regener- 



126 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

ation removes its effects: the defilement consequent on 
sin. Hence we say, the necessity for the new birth 
is found in the effects of personal sins. Let it. be re- 
membered, however, that it is the spirit, not the body, 
that is regenerated in this life; and that the body is 
in no way affected by it, except that, as an instru- 
ment, it is to be used differently and for a different 
purpose. The unregenerate spirit uses the mem- 
bers of the body " as instruments of unrighteousness 
unto sin; " the regenerated spirit must, if it retains its 
regenerated state, use them as " instruments of right- 
eousness unto God." The body itself is neither better 
nor worse, morally; but being better used will be less 
liable to disease and accidents, and therefore longer 
exempted from the ravages of death. Godliness has 
"promise of the life that now is," as well as of "that 
which is to come," but only on the principle here 
stated (as to the length of days), observing which we 
become coworkers with God in preserving health and 
prolonging life. 

Being " born of the Spirit " does not heal the 
maladies of the physical body. It neither gives sight 
to the blind nor hearing to the deaf; neither cures 
the consumptive nor restores lost limbs to the 
maimed; it is not, in a word, the regeneration of the 
body, but of the spirit. When, therefore, we say 
that the necessity for regeneration is found in the 
effects of personal sins and that it removes these 
effects, we must not be understood as referring to 
physical, but to moral effects. The effects upon the 
body will be removed "in the regeneration" at the 
last day, when "the creature itself [the body] also 
shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption 
into the glorious liberty of the children of God." 



CHEISTIAN PERFECTION. 127 

If justification removes the guilt, and regeneration 
the defilement, of personal sins; and if neither the 
guilt nor the defilement of " original sin " can by any 
possibility attach, as an inheritance, to the moral 
man, which we have seen to be true; then there is 
nothing left in the child of God for a specific " second 
blessing" to do, to fit him for the inheritance to 
which he became an heir when he " received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." 
His heirship is inseparable from his childship; so that 
if he should die the next moment after his adoption 
he would enter upon the inheritance of eternal life. 
Death would only release him from his "earthly 
house," that he might go to the "house not made 
with hands, eternal in the heavens." 

Christian perfection does not consist in nor imply 
the elimination of "original sin," or entailed de- 
pravity. This, as we have seen, is an inseparable 
accompaniment of a mortal state of probation, and 
will never be eliminated until " this mortal shall put 
on immortality." Even if it could be proved (which 
it is impossible to do) that u entire sanctification," 
coming as a "second blessing," eliminates what is 
called "inbred sin," or inherited depravity, that is 
not Christian perfection, even according to the teach- 
ing of those who hold that theory. It is true, they 
generally confound the two and argue that to oppose 
the "second blessing" theory of sanctification is to 
oppose the doctrine of Christian perfection; but the 
logic of their position is against them. For, if from 
regeneration to " sanctification " the change must be 
instantaneous, there is no room for growth between 
the two; and if that "second blessing" is Christian 



128 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

perfection there is no appropriate place for the ex- 
hortation, "let us go on to perfection;" for in that 
case, growth in grace is impossible until perfect holi- 
ness has been attained, and it is impossible to go on 
to a place or state that has already been reached. 

They tell us that we cannot grow into it, but that 
it must be sought as a blessing to be bestowed by 
God, and instantaneously. Indeed, Mr. Wesley says: j 
" If there be no such second change, if there be no 
instantaneous deliverance after justification, if there 
be none but a gradual work of God (that there is a 
gradual work none denies), then we 'must be content, 
as well as we can, to remain full of sin till death; and, 
if so, we must remain guilty till death, continually 
deserving punishment. For it is impossible that the 
guilt, or desert of punishment, should be removed 
from us as long as all this sin remains in our heart 
and cleaves to our words and actions." (Sermon on 
the "Repentance of Believers.") 

Remember, he is here speaking of the character 
described in the quotation already made, who has " a 
conscience void of offense, toward God and toward 
man," and that he says: "And a conviction of all this 
sin remaining in their hearts, is the repentance which 
belongs to them that are justified!" Now if, when 
justified and regenerated, one is pardoned of all per- 
sonal sins and cleansed from the defilement thereof, 
so that nothing remains except the entailed depravity 
which he calls "inbred sin," out of which grow the 
sins enumerated by him and which, he tells us, "by 
all the grace given at justification, we cannot extir- 
pate it." It is certain that growth is impossible until 
this impediment to growth is removed. " Though we 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 129 

watcli and pray ever so much, we cannot wholly 
change either our hearts or our hands. Most surely 
we cannot till it shall pleate our Lord to speak to 
our hearts again, to speak the second time, " Be clean;" 
and then only the leprosy is cleansed. Then only the 
evil root, the carnal mind, is destroyed; and inbred 
sin subsists no more." Here it is plainly taught 
that without this " second blessing " we cannot avoid 
sinning, neither inwardly nor outwardly; "cannot 
wholly cleanse either our hearts or hands." Does 
any Methodist believe it? No. Nor did Mr. Wesley; 
he was only caught napping. 

A man cannot grow into the grace of God; neither 
can he grow in grace until he is graciously accepted 
of God. Growth is enlargement; and a thing must 
exist before it can grow. To grow is to increase in size, 
not to change in kind. If a sinner grows, he grows 
into a bigger sinner. As a sinner he cannot grow into 
being a child of God, a Christian. In order to this re- 
lation he must be "be born again," "born of the Spirit." 
When "born of the Spirit," he is a child of God; and 
if, as a child of God, he grows, he must grow into a 
bigger child of God, and on until he reach the " per- 
fect stature " of manhood in that relation. Mr. Wes- 
ley says: "This is undeniably true of sanctification; 
but of regeneration, the new birth, it is not true." 
(Sermon on the "New Birth.") 

Whoever will take the pains to compare the sermon 
(Wesley's) on the "Repentance of Believers" with 
the sermon on the "Wilderness State " will find that 
what is treated in the first as something left in the 
believer, when he is justified and regenerated, of 
which he is afterward to repent, and to remote which 
9 



130 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

a " second blessing" is necessary, in the latter is 
treated as a state " into which so many fail after they 
have believed; " and that "it properly consists in the 
loss of that faith, which God once wrought in their 
heart." This latter being true, as I doubt not it is, 
the necessity for the " second blessing " is found in 
the fact of second sinning. If, therefore, it "please 
our Lord to speak to our hearts again, to speak the 
second time, 'Be clean/" it is because we " the second 
time " need to be cleansed, have the second time de- 
filed ourselves with sin. 

When the man who was " full of leprosy . . . be- 
sought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make 
me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched 
him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately 
the leprosy departed from him." He did not need 
"to speak the second time, 'Be clean,'" in order to 
cleanse the man from his leprosy, that fit type of sin. 
Neither is the second speaking necessary to cleanse 
the sinner, if only he will "go, and sin no more." 
There is not a single instance where, during the 
personal ministry of Jesus, a person cleansed from 
leprosy or healed of any disease ever returned for 
a "second blessing" to complete the cure; nor of one 
whose sins were pardoned, for a more thorough 
cleansing. 

There is a very great difference between an "in- 
crease " of faith and a reexercise of faith. The one 
implies a growth in grace, and is inseparable from 
it; the other implies the loss of faith and the presence 
of unbelief, which is sin, and the consequent need of 
a "second blessing," a second pardon and renewal. 
In his sermon on the " New Birth," Mr. Wesley says: 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 131 

"When we are born again, then our sanctification, 
our inward and outward holiness, begins; and thence- 
forward we are gradually to ' grow up in him who is 
our head.' This expression of the apostle admirably 
illustrates the difference between one and the other, 
and further points out the exact analogy there is be- 
tween natural and spiritual things. A child is bom 
of a woman in a moment, or at least in a very short 
time; afterward he gradually and slowly grows, till 
he attains to the stature of a man. In like manner, 
a child is born of God in a short time, if not in a 
moment. But it is by slow degrees that he after- 
ward grows up to the measure of the full stature of 
Christ. The same relation, therefore, which there is 
between our natural birth and our growth, there is 
also between our new birth and our sanctification." 

Here he as distinctly and as emphatically teaches 
that sanctification is attained by growth "by slow 
degrees," as in the paragraph before quoted he de- 
clares that " if there be no instantaneous deliverance 
after justification" then we are "to remain full of sin 
till death." The two statements cannot both be true; 
for they are contradictory, the one of the other. If 
"by slow degrees," it cannot be "instantaneous." If 
it be said that he does not say entire sanctification, I 
answer that if one has grown " up to the measure of 
the full stature of Christ," he cannot still be "full of 
sin" and "continually deserving punishment." To 
reach that " measure " is, I verily believe, to attain to 
Christian perfection. And if you will substitute 
"Christian perfection" for "sanctification," in the 
paragraph quoted, you w T ill have the correct idea of 
that scriptural doctrine clearly and forcibly expressed. 



132 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

Sanctification, on the human side — as a work 
effected by man — is a state of consecration to God, 
of being set apart to and for holy purposes — for the 
divine use and service; and on the divine side— as 
the work of God — it is a state of gracious acceptance 
and qualification for the use and service to and for 
which the person is set apart. It takes both the 
human and the divine of sanctification to constitute 
one a Christian, a child of God, and of course they 
are both embraced in regeneration. God sanctifies 
all who sanctify themselves, and at once; so that 
sanctification may be said to be an instantaneous 
work. Not so with Christian perfection. It is at- 
tained by growth. We are to " go on to perfection; " 
to "perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord." To 
this end is the gospel preached, as saith Paul: 
" Whom we preach, warning every man, and teach- 
ing every man in all wisdom; that we may present 
every man perfect in Christ Jesus: whereunto I also 
labor, striving according to his working, which work- 
eth in me mightily." (Col. i. 28, 29.) We are to 
sanctify ourselves that we may be sanctified of God. 
Having done the one and received the other, we are 
to "go on to perfection," to "grow in grace, and in 
the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ;" in order 
to which, we are to keep ourselves "unspotted from 
the world;" so that, "when Christ, who is our life, 
shall appear, then shall ye [we] also appear with him 
in glory." 



CHAPTEE XII. 
" Unmethodistic Methodism." 

Such is the title of a tractate of forty pages, by 
Joshua H. Harrison. It is written in the interest of 
Methodism, and is intended to show that the "second 
blessing" theory of sanctification is unmethodistic, 
even when taught by Mr. Wesley himself. It con- 
tains some good things; but, like every other effort 
to overthrow the " second blessing " theory which 
has fallen under my notice, contradicts and destroys 
itself as effectually as it does the theory assailed, and 
by the very same logic. He succeeds in scuttling the 
craft assailed; but, unfortunately, having boarded it 
to do so, and provided no boat in which to escape, 
goes down with the crew whose craft he has scuttled. 

The introductory argument, on "the testimony of 
consciousness in experience," is so presented as to 
effect the works of a boomerang in unskillful hands. 
It is true that "the testimony of consciousness in ex- 
perience gives no statement of doctrine whatsoever; " 
but it does not follow, nor is it true, that " the testi- 
mony of consciousness in experience furnishes no 
trustworthy evidence of the truth of the doctrine 
under which such experiences arises." The whole 
system of salvation through the mediation of Jesus 
Christ, as revealed in the Bible, is supported by " the 
testimony of consciousness in experience," and would 
be absolutely worthless as a source of comfort in this 

(133) 



134 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

life without it. Is the evidence of the truth of the 
great doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ, 
found in the experience of holy men and martyrs 
and recorded in the history of the Church, to be ac- 
counted as " untrustworthy," as adding absolutely 
nothing to the evidence by which the doctrines of 
Christianity are supported? " The testimony of con- 
sciousness in the experience" of the man who was 
born blind and to whom Jesus gave sight gave "no 
statement of doctrine;" but that it furnished "no 
trustworthy evidence of the truth" that Jesus was 
the Christ we are not ready to concede. To his re- 
vilers the man said: "Why herein is a marvelous 
thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet 
he hath opened mine eyes." Discard "the testimony 
of consciousness in experience," and you destroy the 
vital principle of Christianity, that which distin- 
guishes it from and elevates it above every other sys- 
tem of religion the world has ever known. Tes, you 
render it impossible to support by satisfactory and 
convincing evidence, even to the intellect, the funda- 
mental facts and doctrines which make it a vitalizing 
power in the world. 

Our author says: "The testimony of consciousness 
is infallibly accordant with the honest convictions 
under which it exists." A self-evident proposition; 
for it can only mean that the consciousness of honest 
convictions is concordant with itself! Man is con- 
scious of convictions; and these convictions are often 
the result of a conscious experience in something 
else. Of course they are accordant. The man whose 
eyes were opened was conscious of a conviction 
touching the character of Jesus; and this conviction 



"UXMETHODISTIC METHODISM." 135 

was the result of a conscious experience in the 
matter of seeing. "The testimony of conscious- 
ness" is ultimate and incontrovertible as to that of 
which it bears direct testimony and to him to whom it 
testifies — to whom it comes as an "experience." 
Its indirect testimony is of a logical nature, and 
of course depends upon the reasoning powers of 
him to whom it becomes evidence. This indirect 
testimony may be classed as circumstantial evi- 
dence, but cannot be set aside as wholly untrust- 
worthy. The testimony of consciousness in the 
experience of the blind man, when restored to 
sight, was, to him, direct and incontrovertible as to 
the fact that he could now see. Of this there was no 
room for doubt, and he boldly declared: "One thing 
I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see." From 
this fact, established beyond question by the testi- 
mony of consciousness in experience, he reasoned to- 
ward and finally reached another conclusion — viz., 
that Jesus was "the Son of God." "And he wor- 
shiped him" as such. He could not be conscious 
that Jesus was divine as well as human, neither did 
his consciousness in the experience of seeing give 
statement of such a fact or doctrine; but it did fur- 
nish data reasoning from which the acceptance of 
such fact, when stated, was natural, if not inevitable. 
Hence, when the Jews reviled him and said: "We 
know not from whence he [Jesus] is, the man an- 
swered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvel- 
ous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and 
yet he hath opened mine eyes." So now, the testi- 
mony of consciousness in the experience of justifica- 
tion, regeneration, and adoption does not give state- 



136 THE PliOBLEM SOLVED. 

ment of any doctrine; but it does furnish "trustwor- 
thy evidence of the truth of the doctrine under which 
such experiences arise." It is because of this fact 
and upon this principle that Jesus declares: "If any 
man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, f 
whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." 
The testimony of consciousness, however, is im- 
possible, except in things that are experienced and 
such as have logical connection with them as experi- 
enced. Neither of which can be predicated of a mere 
theory touching any doctrine or fact, whether of na- 
ture or of revelation. Consciousness attests the fact 
that we are sinners, but only when we are personally 
guilty. Freedom from guilt is the work of pardon, 
and the evidence of that freedom is the consciousness 
of it wrought in us by the witnessing Spirit of God. 
The testimony of consciousness as to deliverance 
from moral evil is necessarily limited by the con- 
sciousness of its need, which went before and incited 
to its seeking. Unless, therefore, we can be con- 
sciously guilty of something we never did, we can 
never be consciously delivered from "original sin," 
neither by a "second blessing" nor any other. 
Brother Harrison says: "I assert that a man may be 
as readily convicted of inbred as of personal sin." 
(Page 11.) This assertion needs to be explained or 
proved, or both. When we say a man is convicted of 
personal sin, we mean that he is consciously guilty; 
and he who asserts " that a man may be as readily 
convicted of inbred as of personal sin " should explain 
what he means by " convicted," for the assertion in- 
volves the denial of conscious guiltiness upon the 
part of personal sinners, or the affirmation that one 



"UNMETHODISTIC METHODISM." 137 

may be consciously guilty of what has been entailed 
upon him; and to do either is to antagonize both 
the teachings of the Bible and the experience of the 
best people of every age of the world. 

Again, he says: "There is no warrant in the 
Scriptures for the doctrine that conviction of sin ex- 
tends only to personal £in, and that regeneration de- 
livers from personal sin only, so that there must be 
another deliverance accomplished after knowledge of 
other sin has been acquired." Here he seems to ad- 
mit — rather to affirm — and I presume intends to do 
so, that the Scriptures teach that there must be con- 
viction of and deliverance from some sin other than 
personal; and only to deny that it is done after re- 
generation. Every such admission is as fatal to the 
theory of those who deny as of them who teach sanc- 
tification as a specific second blessing. For if origi- 
nal or "inbred," sin is something inherited from 
Adam, and that must be eradicated in this life, it is 
evident, and will be admitted by all, that it is done in 
regeneration or some time thereafter. If not in 
regeneration, another, if not a "second," blessing is 
a necessity, if it is ever removed. But whether in 
regeneration or by a second special blessing there- 
after, if it is destroyed or eradicated, the entailment 
is effectually stopped on that line. It can descend 
no farther; for the very simple but all sufficient 
reason that it is not there to descend. 

If original or "inbred" sin is not to be forgiven or 
taken out of the individual, for what purpose is he 
"convicted of" its existence?" And if it is taken 
out or destroyed, whether in regeneration or "sanc- 
tification," it cannot be further propagated. "Un- 



138 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

methodistic Methodism " seems a little confused and, 
at times, self-contradictory. But this is not to be 
wondered at, as only Methodistic Methodism is self- 
consistent. The author says: "Now I submit that 
if he [Adam] and Eve had been regenerated before 
the generation of their children, they could not have 
communicated any depravity to their offspring; for 
regeneration would have saved them from all the 
effects of sin for which he was responsible. And 
this would have estopped the descent of depravity 
from Adam." (Page 36.) Now I submit that the 
logic of what is here assumed and affirmed charges 
God with an act of absolute injustice to the whole 
liuman race. If lie could have regenerated Adam, 
and thus saved his posterity from the effects of his 
sin, and would not do it, it was cruel to the innocent 
offspring not to do it. If he could not because of 
Adam's resistance, or his refusal to accept it, in- 
justice to his posterity was the result of delay in 
meeting merited punishment to the father; and that, 
too, when mercy, blood-bought mercy, had been 
proffered instead of merited death, the penalty in- 
curred by his first sin! 

But the assumption that they were not "regener- 
ated before the generation of children" is purely 
gratuitous. It is also contradictory of the soundest 
philosophy and of the tenor of gospel teaching. If 
Adam had not been pardoned, he would have been 
executed; so that regeneration of and in him was 
necessary in order to generation by him. There was 
put enmity between the woman and the serpent, as 
well as between her seed and its seed; and this en- 
mity, it is fair to presume, began at once. Besides, 



"UNMETHODISTIC METHODISM." 139 

if regeneration would have destroyed depravity in 
them, who were personally responsible for its exis- 
tence, reason asserts and justice demands that ic 
would more effectually and with greater certainty re- 
move it from them who have no responsibility in the 
matter, but are only unfortunate in having it entailed 
upon them. Not only so, but if regeneration would 
remove it from them, it must be because its existence 
in them rendered regeneration necessary. And if 
so, and it was entailed because the needed regenera- 
tion was not effected, it was the need of regeneration 
that was entailed; and as regeneration and that which 
makes it a necessity cannot coexist, entailed depravity 
is destroyed in every regenerated child of Adam, and 
its further entailment, along that line forever es- 
topped. Thus it is seen that the logic used against 
the residue and second blessing theory is as effectual 
in the destruction of his own theory as of that he op- 
poses. They must therefore be equally erroneous 
and unscriptural. 

Like Brother Harrison, " I can see no ground upon 
which I may grant that sin in Adam was different 
essentially from sin in us." Adam's sin was personal, 
it was his sin; and his depravity was the result of his 
own sinning. His personal guiltiness was the ground 
of his need of pardon, and the effect of his guilty act 
upon the moral man, its defilement or pollution, 
rendered regeneration a necessity. Such, precisely, 
is the case with us. We never needed pardon until 
we were personally guilty, until we personally sinned; 
nor did we need regeneration, in our spiritual, moral 
being, until the defilement of our personal sins made 
it a necessity. 



140 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

The entailment of moral guiltiness, or of moral de- 
filement, is a moral impossibility; because it involves 
the character of Jehovah in the matter of justice in 
dealing with moral beings — charges him with injustice 
in dealing with his creatures. The redemption of the 
human family is equivalent to a new creation ; is, in fact, 
the recreation of the race in Christ Jesus, the second 
Adam, and by means of the first Adam as the instru- 
ment of propagation through whom personal being 
was secured to all his descendants. As is the fountain 
so is the stream. Every child of man is a descendant 
from Adam, and as such is, in the beginning of his 
pilgrimage through this world, a partaker of the life 
imparted through Jesus Christ in the new creation. 
He is a descendant by natural generation, but through 
the grace of God in Jesus Christ, who is the life of 
the world; and is therefore at once a child of God 
and a child of Adam; inheriting spiritual life from 
God the Father through Jesus Christ his Son, and 
physical death — mortality — by the appointment of 
God, from Adam. 

Resurrection and regeneration are the same. Not 
that the words are synonymous, but that they desig- 
nate the same work. One means, literally, a rising 
again, and the other a reproducing; but, as applied 
to the recovery of man from the effects of sin — to 
his salvation — they both imply a purifying, or 
cleansing. The work of death is corruption, whether 
of body or Spirit; and to be quickened, raised from 
the dead, is to be purified from the corruption which 
it works. Of Lazarus it was said, " by this time he 
stinketh." This was evidence of corruption, from 
which he was purified in and by his resurrection; but 



141 

only to the normal state of a mortal body. In the final 
resurrection we will be delivered even from mortality 
— the tendency to death. So in the quickening of 
the spirit, or regeneration, it is purified from the cor- 
ruption or defilement of spiritual death, a death 
wrought by personal sinning, as that comes upon 
none except as the result of their own sin: "You 
hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and 
sins;" "and you being dead in your sins . . . 
hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven 
you all trespasses." 

Human nature was quickened, regenerated, in its 
spiritual, moral being through him who is "the life" 
of the world, and who is the "gift of God" to uni- 
versal humanity; and death, spiritual death, comes to 
none except as " the wages of sin " to each individual 
sinner. Physical death, as we have already seen, is 
of God's appointing; and the infirmities which are 
the necessary attendants of a mortal state of proba- 
tion are the expression and evidence of the depravity 
consequent, by the appointment of God, upon the 
apostasy of the first created pair. From this de- 
pravity, or corruption of the physical man, we are to 
be delivered in the day when that which "is sown 
in corruption" shall be "raised in incorruption " — 
when " this corruptible must put on incorruption, 
and this mortal must put on immortality." That re- 
generation will purify the body from all mortal cor- 
ruption; for it will be raised a spiritual body and 
fashioned like uuto his glorious body who is "the 
resurrection and the life." Then will redemption be 
complete, and God's children will have attained to the 
perfection to which they are now exhorted to go on. 



142 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

They are to be perfect here in order to go on to per- 
fection there. They are to be " made conformable 
unto his death " here, that they may " attain unto the 
resurrection of the dead " hereafter among those who 
"shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption 
unto the glorious liberty of the children of God." 
They are to "let this mind be in" them "which was 
also in Christ Jesus" — "walk not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit " — and " forgetting those things 
which are behind, and reaching forth unto those 
things which are before, press toward the mark for 
the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." 
("The prize" is at the end of the race.) "Not as 
though" they "had already attained, either were al- 
ready perfect; " and yet " as many as be perfect " are 
to "be thus minded," and to "walk by the same 
rule," "mind the same thing," following the example 
of those whose "conversation is in heaven; from 
whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus 
Christ: who shall change our vile body [as he has 
changed our spirit], that it may be fashioned like 
unto his glorious body, according to the working 
whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto 
himself." (See Phil. ii. and iii. ) 

Accept the apostle's idea of two adoptions (one of the 
spirit and in this life, and the other of the body and 
in the final resurrection), and the fact that it takes 
both to constitute completed salvation (remembering 
that the first is necessary only to those who by per- 
sonal transgression have apostatized from the divine 
favor, and is therefore conditioned upon the personal 
faith of such subject), and you can consistently reject 
the second blessing theory of sanctification. Other- 
wise you cannot. 



CHAPTEE XIIL 

"Sanctification^ by Rev. B. Caeeadixe, D.D." 

Haying briefly reviewed the reviewer of this pam- 
phlet, I deem it proper to devote a few pages to the 
consideration of the treatment which the subject of 
sanctification receives at the hands of its author. Let 
it be distinctly understood, however, in the beginning, 
that I have no fault to find with the experience of 
Dr. Carradine. On the other hand, I believe in as 
high attainments in Christian experience as he or 
any other man, in proportion to capacity for believ- 
ing. I accept heartily the fact that " the blood of Je- 
sus Christ . . . cleanseth fron all sin;"' and the 
further fact that one " may be able to coin- 
prehend with all saints what is the breadth, and 
depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, 
which passeth knowledge that you [we] might be 
filled with all the fullness of God." I do not doubt 
that many (it may be nearly all) Christians live far 
below their privileges as the children of God; and I 
am always rejoiced to learn that one has. like our be- 
loved Doctor, attained to a stronger faith and greater 
fullness of love than are experienced by the great 
mass of professed believers in Christ. I do not ques- 
tion his experience, even in thought; nor do I object 
to the doctrine of sanctification or of Christian perfec- 
tion. I believe that both are taught in the Scrip- 
tures. I also accept all that can be logically and 

(143) 



144 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

scripturally deduced from the highest possible expe- 
rience of conscious fellowship with Jesus Christ as a 
personal Saviour. 

I accept not only the possibility, but the fact in 
many cases, of perfect deliverance from all sin and an 
abiding peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ; so that we may " rejoice evermore, pray with- 
out ceasing, and in everything give thanks." All this 
I steadfastly believe. But the theory of the "second 
blessing " and what it accomplishes, as set forth by 
the doctor in his treatise, is neither sustained by rea- 
son, experience, nor the Scriptures. 

Reason cannot proceed — cannot begin — without 
data. It must have some real or assumed facts or 
truths with which to begin and from which to deduce 
an argument. If the basal facts are only assumed, 
the conclusion reached in the argument can never be 
more certain than is the truth of the assumption. If, 
for instance, it be assumed that there is in man — all 
men — as an entailment from Adam, such a corruption 
of the moral nature as effectually bars his entrance 
into heaven unless it be eradicated in this life; and 
that in the case of infants, and of adults who are only 
regenerated, it will be removed in case of and in the 
article of death; but that it may be, and in the sancti- 
fied is removed by a special "second blessing" sub- 
sequent to regeneration and any length of time before 
death; no conclusion reached by argumentation from 
these assumptions can be more reliable than the as- 
sumptions themselves. If such a state of things ex- 
ist, it is impossible to know it except by revelation. 

Experience can never prove it; for the simple rea- 
son that it was never given, and can never be experi- 



" SANCTIFICATION, BY KEV. B. CABEADINE, D.D." 145 

enced, and that it lies beyond the reach of logic based 
upon any experience possible to man. It is that of 
which man was never and can never be made con- 
scious, even though it were true. In order to such an 
experience man must be intellectually and intelligent- 
ly cognizant of the consciousness with which he en- 
tered the world, and that consciousness must have 
been of his physical descent from and moral relation- 
ship to Adam! As well talk about being conscious 
of having inherited sick headache from Adam, or 
dyspepsia, or rheumatism, or any other of the many 
ailments of the body incident to this life! 

That man inherited from Adam that which makes 
him liable to these sufferings I do not question; but 
of this he can never be conscious, he can never expe- 
rience it. His moral consciousness begins at a later 
period than his physical, and is therefore at a great- 
er remove from Adam and of possible experience in 
the matter of relationship to him. A man may expe- 
rience a relish for strong drink and be conscious of a 
longing for it; but he cannot be conscious that he in- 
herited the appetite from Adam, or even from his im- 
mediate progenitors. Neither could he learn the fact 
from experience, though it were true. What is true 
of a conscious liking for ardent spirits and a conse- 
quent bias to drunkenness is equally true of a con- 
scious predisposition to any and everything the doing 
of which is sin. Experience can never teach us that 
it is inherited from Adam. Indeed, whoever will con- 
sult his own consciousness and study the experiences 
of his past life will find that their testimony is all on 
the other side. He will find that the appetence to 
wrong is mainly to that for which a relish has been 
10 



146 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

acquired, and that the oftener lie lias indulged the 
stronger is the temptation to repeat, and the harder 
it is to resist. 

As a rule, it is easy for a man to resist solicita- 
tion to do a recognized wrong of which he has nev- 
er been guilty, especially if he has had the advantage 
of early religious instruction. The children of re- 
ligious parents who have been consistently pious and 
have taught them both by precept and example to 
fear God and eschew evil, if they have acquired evil 
habits, will generally remember that they took their 
first wrong step under protest and through the in- 
fluence of personal solicitation by professed friends, 
and not as the result of an innate bias to wrong. 
Those who have been under no religious restraints, 
but have been addicted to habits of vice from their 
earliest recollection, do not in their conscious experi- 
ence attribute their conduct to an inherited depravity 
which compelled th^m to their course, but rather to 
their early environment and training. They feel that 
if they had been blessed with pious parents and ear- 
ly religious instruction their course would have been 
different, and this is universally conceded to be true. 
Not only so, but the children of vicious parents whose 
personal and acquired depravity has unfitted them for 
social enjoyment in, and for which they have been os- 
tracised from, the better circles of society, if taken in 
early infancy and reared in the midst of refinement 
and under proper religious influence, may be devel- 
oped into a moral and intellectual manhood such as 
will ornament society and minister good to the world. 

The theory of an entailed moral guiltiness or cor- 
ruption is not, then, the fruit of experience nor the 



"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CAREADINE, D.D." 147 

logical outcome of reason; neither does it find su re- 
port in the one or the other, nor in both together. 
Unless, therefore, it is a matter of revelation and is 
supported by the word of God, it must be regarded 
as an exotic, transplanted by the power of an abnor- 
mal imagination from the land of Utopia only to per- 
ish at the touch of the real. It is assumed by the 
Doctor, as it is by all who advocate the " second bless- 
ing" theory, that what he calls "inbred sin" "origi- 
nal sin," "depravity," etc., is a moral defilement en- 
tailed by Adam upon all the race, and that it is to be 
destroyed, cleansed away, eradicated in this life or in 
the hour and article of death ; that it is not done in 
regeneration, but that a second and distinct blessing 
called sanctification does the work, and that this " sec- 
ond blessing" is necessary to fit man for heaven. It 
is assumed, I say, but has never been proved. 

He tells us that " original sin refers to the sin of 
Adam, and 'actual sin' to our own personal transgres- 
sions;" that "in justification, which means pardon, 
my own actual or personal sins are forgiven, but not 
original sin," and asks: "How can I be pardoned for 
what I did not commit?" (Page 13.) Now in this 
we agree; but "original sin " must, in some sense, be- 
come ours, if it is that which renders sanctification a 
necessity and which must, by means of sanctification, 
be eradicated in this life in order to our fitness for 
heaven; especially if its removal is conditioned upon 
our repentance and faith. The importance of sancti- 
fication, in this view of it, can be determined and 
measured only by what it does; and we must deter- 
mine in what sense and to what extent original sin 
becomes ours— how and to what extent it affects us — 



148 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

in order to know what is the work effected by sancti- 
fication. That we " did not commit " original sin the 
Doctor admits and affirms. That it cannot be " for- 
given " us he also declares, and correctly. This is in 
accord with our Seventh Article, which declares that 
" original sin standeth not in the following of Adam" 
— that is, in repeating and being guilty of the sin he 
committed. To do that, we would have to be situated 
as he was and under the same law, a thing impossible 
in the very nature of the case, unless Adam's redemp- 
tion had been accomplished by some other means 
than the death of the Son of man and we had been 
born in the Garden of Eden and of parents in the 
primeval state. 

What, then, is original sin, as applied to the de- 
scendants of Adam — to us? Our Article says, "it is 
the corruption of the nature of every man, that natu- 
rally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, where- 
by man is very far gone from original righteousness, 
and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that con- 
tinually." What is here meant by "corruption" and 
"inclined to evil," is defined in Article VIIL, which 
describes "the condition of man after the fall of 
Adam" to be "such, that he cannot turn and prepare 
himself, by his own natural strength and works, to 
faith, and calling upon God: wherefore we have no 
power to do good works, pleasing and acceptable to 
God, without the grace of God by Christ prevent- 
ing us, that we may have a good will, and work- 
ing with us, when we have that good will." All 
that can be meant by these two Articles is that all 
the good in man, since the fall of Adam, is due to 
the grace of God in Jesus Christ; that, supposing 



"SANCTIFICATION, BY EEV. B. CARBADINE, D.D." 149 

him to exist after the fall without redemption, he 
would do only evil, and that continually, having no 
power to do good works; and that the grace of God 
by Christ brings — has brought — enablement, so that 
we can, by that grace, do all that is required or that 
is necessary to the attainment of eternal life. 

What is said of man's corruption, inclination to 
evil, and utter helplessness, after the fall of- Adam, in 
defining "original sin," is only an attempt to tell 
what he would have been without recovering and ena- 
bling grace. And if we had an Article on original 
grace, setting forth its countervailing influences in 
and on behalf of man, it might serve as a safeguard 
against the error into which so many have thought- 
lessly fallen. 

The Article might be expressed in some such 
words as these: "Therefore, as by the offense of one 
[Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
tion; even so by the righteousness of one [Jesus 
Christ] the free gift came upon all men unto justifi- 
cation of life. For as by one man's disobedience 
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one 
shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law 
entered, that the offense might abound. But where 
sin abounded, grace did much more abound. That 
as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace 
reign through righteousness unto eternal life by 
Jesus Christ our Lord." The acceptance of such an 
Article as this, it seems to me, would serve to define 
and set proper limits to the meaning of our Seventh. 
Here we "learn that original grace, in the "second 
Adam," countervails "original sin" by the first Adam, 
and to all descendants of theirs* because they are all as 



150 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

evidently and as really the descendants of the Second, 
though in a different sense. Just so far as "original 
sin" affects the descendants of Adam without any 
agency on their part, just so far does original grace, 
in Jesus Christ, affect the same descendants, and un- 
conditionally, in their deliverance from the effects of 
original sin. 

Not only so; but " where sin abounded, grace did 
much more abound." Grace not only abounded in the 
destruction of original sin, so far as its immediate 
and direct effects upon the moral man are concerned, 
but it also abounded (and abounds) in the pardon of 
personal sins, to which, by the entailment of deprav- 
ity, man is made more liable. Original grace effectu- 
ally and unconditionally delivers from original sin; 
and special grace to personal sinners, when accepted 
by personal faith in Jesus Christ, delivers from act- 
ual, personal sin and its effects; from sin by means 
of pardon, and from its effects by regeneration. 

All entailed depravity is in and of the body, and 
moral depravity comes to each individual through 
his own volition; so that, if "we are sanctified by the 
removal or destruction of depravity," as says Dr. 
Carradine (and .he means entailed depravity, or orig- 
inal sin), sanctification can mean no less than the 
destruction of the seeds of death — of mortality — and 
the rendering man immortal in his body ; and in this 
life. Some such idea as this seems to have pressed 
itself upon the Doctor's notice, for he says: "When 
I am born again, I stand a regenerated creature in 
the presence of wayward tendencies of the flesh, and 
this dark element called original sin," etc. He then 
asks, "Why is it there is a regenerated life?" and 



"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CABRAD1NE, D.D." 151 

answers, "Because there is no new birth or renovation 
for original sin." (Page 13.) Certainly not; nor for 
any other sin, but only for the sinner; and if that fact 
accounts for the presence of original sin in a "regen- 
erated" man, it equally accounts for the presence of 
actual personal sins in the same "regenerated" person. 
If he means to say that where only original sin exists 
"there is no new birth or resurrection" needed, he 
destroys his whole theory of sanctification, and con- 
tradicts himself when he teaches that sanctification 
removes original sin! If he means neither the one 
nor the other (which, I verily believe, is the case), 
then he would have conveyed quite as mucli meaning 
by leaving the space blank. 

But he immediately adds: "The carnal mind is 
enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law 
of God, neither indeed can he. 77 (Rom. viii. 7.) This 
quotation he evidently intends his reader to take as 
an inspired definition of original sin, or entailed de- 
pravity! Supposing it to be such (which it most 
certainly is not), is there "no new birth or renova- 
tion" for such a mind? To such the apostle Paul 
would say: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of 
your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and 
acceptable, and perfect will of God." It is the car- 
nality of the mind that renders a renovation neces- 
sary. "For to be carnally minded is death; but to 
be spiritually minded is life and peace." The reason 
assigned by the apostle for the fact that "to be car- 
nally minded is death" is, "because the carnal mind 
is enmity against God," and "not subject to the law 
of God." In regeneration this carnality is destroyed 
— not the mind, but its carnality. Neither the mind 



152 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

nor the flesh is destroyed, but the mind is renewed — 
"renovated" — delivered from the dominion of the 
flesh and brought under the dominion of the Spirit. 
It no longer walks "after the flesh, but after the 
Spirit;" and "there is therefore now no condemna- 
tion to" it, however severe the temptation to obey the 
body "in the lusts thereof." 

We are told that "justification evidently cannot 
reach original sin," which is certainly true; for justi- 
fication is pardon, and pardon implies guilt, and none 
have been guilty of original sin since Adam. " In re- 
generation," says the Doctor, "the soul is born again, 
made new, entered upon a spiritual life." This also 
is true; and if he had added that "in the regenera- 
tion " at the last day (the resurrection) the body will 
be "born again, made new, entered upon a spiritual 
life," he would have presented the "second blessing" 
theory of the apostle Paul; for "that personal de- 
pravity, which arises from one's own actual sin, is 
corrected by regeneration; but original sin, or inher- 
ited depravity, remains untouched," and will until 
" the adoption " for which we are waiting — to wit, 
"the redemption of the body." Then "the creature 
itself [the body] also shall be delivered from the bond- 
age of corruption into the glorious liberty of the chil- 
dren of God." 

After telling us that "personal depravity which 
arises from one's own actual sin is corrected by re- 
generation," he says: "Various propensities of the 
body, which regeneration . . . could not eradi- 
cate, are instantly . . . extirpated" by sanctifi- 
cation; that "the craving of habit is ended," etc. 
Now if there are any "propensities of the body," in- 



"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CAKBADINE, D.D." 153 

dependent of the mind, they have, and can have no 
moral quality whatever, and cannot need to be " ex- 
tirpated " in order to the perfection of moral charac- 
ter. It is only the propensity of the mind, the spirit, 
to do forbidden things with the body, as an instru- 
ment, that has moral quality and needs to be correct- 
. ed. As to habit, that, it seems to me, if sinful, is per- 
sonal depravity, " which arises from one's own actual 
sin." It certainly cannot be " original sin, or inherit- 
ed depravity," which " remains untouched " by regen- 
eration. "Habit" was certainly not inherited from 
Adam, but is the result of personal sins, persisted in 
and repeated until the habit was formed. " The crav- 
ing" is the result of " habit," and "habit " is formed 
by repeated personal action. The craving of " habit," 
therefore, is "personal depravity ; r; and according to 
the Doctor, must be "corrected by regeneration." 

He tells us that " the crowning proof that holiness 
is not growth in grace appears from the word of 
God;" and here it is as he presents it: "For when 
the Bible speaks of the duty of growth, it turns to 
man and says: 'Grow in grace;' but when it speaks 
of sanctification, it looks to God and says : ' Faithful 
is he that calleth you, who also will do it/ " I know 
of no one who teaches that "holiness" is "growth in 
grace;" though some teach that " sanctification " 
(with the Doctor they are the same) is attained by 
growth, and some that it is necessary in order to 
growth. Whether either is right depends on the 
sense in which the word is used. It may be that both 
are right. If by it is meant the Christian perfection 
to which we hope to attain and after which we pro- 
fess to be "groaning," it is attained by growth — we 



154 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

are " going on to perfection." If used in the sense of 
consecration — a setting apart to the service of God — 
of course this must be done before and in order to 
growth in grace. Be this as it may, the Scriptures 
quoted do not sustain nor favor the idea of sanctifica- 
tion as a second special blessing to be sought after 
regeneration. 

Of the first I would ask: Does "the Bible"' 
speak to the ^msanctified or to the sanctified man, 
when it says: "Grow in grace?" He is not to grow 
into grace, but in grace. He is to enlarge and 
strengthen, by growth, in the state wherein he is. Is 
it a sanctified or an unsanctified state? Is he exhort- 
ed to grow in unholiness or in holiness? Bead the 
connection and see. (2 Pet. iii. ) Then turn to 1 
Thessalonians v. and read it carefully, and learn 
what it is that the Lord "also ivill do" "What is it? 
Why, he will preserve " blameless unto the coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ " those who do the things pre- 
scribed in verses 15-22, and whom the Lord will, 
therefore, sanctify. Not the remotest reference to a 
"second blessing," in the sense taught by Dr. Carra- 
cline. In both the passages referred to the thing em- 
phasized is not a second blessing, but perseverance 
in holy living, in view of the second " coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ " that we " may be found of him in 
peace, without spot and blameless." 

"What It Is." i 

The doctor has two chapters under this head, to a 

few things in which I wish to call attention. 

"Samtificalion is a doctrine." Yes; but it is not 

something to be sought, as a distinct and separate 



"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. OAERADINE, D.D." 155 

blessing, after regeneration. Justification, and regen- 
eration are doctrines, but we do not therefore teach 
that justification is first to be sought and obtained, 
with the Spirit's witness to it, and afterward regenera- 
tion must be sought and additional evidence — another 
distinct witnessing of the Spirit — given to the fact of 
its possession! 

u Sanctification is the work of God." If the expres- 
sions quoted under this head apply only to sanctifica- 
tion, then a man may be a child of God — regenerated 
— and yet be unclean, unholy, unanointed, unsealed, 
and unrenewed! He tells us that "the Bible says: 
' The blood cleanseth,' ' the altar [ Christ] makes holy.' 
. . . In still other places the expressions used in 
description of the blessing of holiness are: ' The bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost,' ' the anointing and sealing 
of the Holy Ghost,' and 'the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost.' ' By " the blessing of holiness," "in descrip- 
tion of " which the terms quoted are used, he evident- 
ly means sanctification as a specific "second bless- 
ing," to be sought after regeneration; and if so, they 
do not describe nor define the work done in regenera- 
tion. For things equal to the same thing are equal 
to one another;* and if the same words define regener- 
ation that define sanctification, then they are equal, 
if wot the same. 

On page 26 he tells us that "regeneration is a new 
birth, a change of masters, the implanting of a new 
life and love, the cleansing away of personal sins, and 
the removal of that depravity that results from per- 
sonal transgressions, so that the man is a new creat- 
ure, and can say: 'Old things have passed away — all 
things have become new.' " Here, then, is a descrip- 



156 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

tion of a man who needs to be " sanctified," and wlio 
must yet be sanctified in order to get to heaven. He 
is "born of the Spirit," is a servant of God, is 
cleansed from all personal sins and all depravity re- 
sulting therefrom, "is a new creature" (in Christ Je- 
sus, of course), and from him " old things have passed 
away — [and] all things become new." Surely such 
a man has "put off . . . the old man, which is 
corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;" has been 
"renewed in the spirit of [his] mind;" and has "put 
on the new man, which after God is created in right- 
eousness and true holiness." And yet this man, ac- 
cording to Dr. Carradine, has "in the heart" "the 
body of sin," "the law of sin and death," "the flesh," 
"the carnal mind," "the old man, and proneness to 
sin;" each (and all) of which means, according to 
the Doctor, " inbred sin or inherited depravity." And 
these are only "some of the names given to describe 
the dark principles of evil that rule in an unconvert- 
ed life, and the struggles for mastery in the heart of 
the regenerated Christian," and "that is destroyed in 
sanctification." 

On page 34 he tells us that sanctification " only de- 
stroys sin." Of course he means inherited sin; for 
"regeneration," he tells us, takes away all personal 
sin and its effects. What, I ask, is the difference be- 
tween actual personal sin and inherited sin? Just 
exactly the difference there is between guilt and in- 
nocence; no more and no less. Of the one the man is 
guilty; of the other he is not, and cannot be. Just the 
difference there is between sin and no sin; " for sin is 
the transgression of the law" and that was never in- 
herited by any. Just the difference there is between 



"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CABRADINE, D.D." 157 

life and death; for lie who is not dead in " his " tres- 
passes and sins " is " alive to God through Jesus 
Christ our Lord." Just the difference there is be- 
tween an appointment of God and a morally wrong act 
of a personally responsible moral creature; for, as has 
been elsewhere shown, all the depravity that man in- 
herits from Adam is that which pertains to the body 
and is necessary to and inseparable from a mortal 
state of probation, to which man was appointed in 
the reconditioning which God saw was necessary in 
redeeming the race. Indeed, it is mortality itself, 
with its attendant infirmities, recovery from which 
will be effected "in the regeneration when the Son 
of man shall sit in the throne of his glory; " " when 
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this 
mortal must put on immortality." "Then shall be 
brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is 
swallowed up in victory." 

That "original sin," entailed depravity, is not de- 
stroyed or "eradicated" in this life is, as I have 
more than once repeated, evidenced in the fact that 
it continues to be entailed, even by sanctified parents. 
A pure fountain can no more send forth a corrupt 
stream than a corrupt fountain can send forth pure 
water. But a man in whom sin is not destroyed is a 
sinner; and "whosoever is born of God doth not 
commit sin." It follows, therefore, that if sin is not 
destroyed in any but the sanctified, every one who is 
"born of God" is also sanctified. 

" Sanctification is a divine work wrought instanta- 
neously." As proof of this we are asked, on page 40: 
"If God can take a perfect giant in sin and make 
him a babe in Christ in a moment, can he not take 



158 THE PROBLEM SOLYED. 

a babe m Christ and make hiro. a perfect man in 
Christ Jesus in a moment? " I do not question that 
God could take a babe, physically, and make a man of 
it in a moment; but that is not his way of doing. If 
any one thinks it is, he must produce the proof. Of 
course the Bible teaches holiness of heart and life, 
and as a present duty and precious privilege; but 
that it teaches that it is the duty of sinners to seek 
regeneration now, and sanctification after awhile, is a 
very different thing, and the thing that is here de- 
nied. If it be said that nobody contends for such 
teaching, I answer, it is a logical necessity if the 
theory of the " second blessing," as taught by Dr. 
Carradine, is true. But it is neither scriptural nor 
true. It would be just as scriptural, and just as rea- 
sonable, to teach that the sinner must seek (1) justi- 
fication and the evidence of it; then (2) regeneration 
and its evidence; then (3) adoption and the witness 
of the Spirit that he is a child of God; and then (4) 
seek sanctification and the Spirit's witness to it as an 
accomplished fact. It is true, this would make sanc- 
tification the fourth, instead of the second blessing; 
but it wT>uld be quite as reasonable and scriptural as 
the theory of the second, and its advocates could, at 
least, claim the honor of discovering and teaching 
something new in theology; that is, if I had not first 
suggested it! I doubt not that they would soon find 
earnest and zealous followers, whose experience would 
be proclaimed as irrefutable evidence of the truth of 
their theory. 

" Where It Is Symbolically Taught in the Bible." 
Under this head, beginning on page 48, we are pre- 



"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CABBADINE, D.D." 159 

sented with some of the rarest specimens of analog- 
ical reasoning, from what he is pleased to call sym- 
bolical teaching, that can b e found in all the range of 
theological discussions. If I did not have the evi- 
dence before me, I could hardly believe it possible 
for a sane and thoughtful mind to practice such de- 
ception upon itself as to offer to others such substi- 
tute for argument. 

First. He finds the "two experiences of regen- 
eration and sanctification " taught in the "division 
of the tabernacle and temple into the holy and most 
holy places," and says: "A veil separated the two 
places, just as a veil hides the sanctified life from 
the regenerated man to-day! " He asks: "What did 
God design to teach, if not the two experiences," by 
"this division? " An answer to his question may be 
found in the ninth chapter of Hebrews, which I hope 
the reader will turn to and carefully read. He will 
find there that " into the second went the high priest 
alone" and he only "once every year." Verily, sanc- 
tification— the "second blessing" — was a "rarity" in 
those days! Only the high priest could obtain it, 
and he only at long intervals! As he was a type of 
our great High Priest, Jesus Christ, who "entered 
in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal 
redemption," the conclusion, from analogy, is that 
he obtained the "second blessing" on entering into 
heaven! By the way, what significance is there in 
the fact that the high priest had to seek this " second 
blessing" "once every year;" that he did not abide 
in the Holy of Holies, but only went in and came out 
"once every year?" 

Second. He finds it also "in the second cleansing 



160 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

of the temple;" and could as readily find it in the 
second crowing of the cock. 

" Third. The second blessing, or sanctification, is 
seen in the second touch laid upon the eyes of the 
blind man." This on page 49. Now turn to page 14 
and read: " Sanctification is not a second touch upon 
the same blind eyes, but it is a second touch of the 
Holy Ghost laid upon something else altogether" The j 
spirit of man is touched by the quickening Spirit of 
God in regeneration. What is the "something else 
altogether" that is touched in the second blessing — 
sanctification? Is it the body? Then he must ac- 
cept the doctrine of the apostle Paul, that the second 
adoption is to take place at the resurrection, in " the 
redemption of the body." 

"Fourth. The second blessing, or sanctification, is 
seen in the two baptisms of the Bible: the one of 
the water, and. the other of the Holy Ghost." Then 
water baptism is regeneration, and Spirit baptism is 
sanctification — that is, man, by means of water, re- 
generates his fellow, and then God sanctifies him! I 
have thought, and have not yet changed my mind, 
that water baptism is only a ceremonial and symbolic 
purification, intended to direct the mind to the real 
baptism, or purification, effected by the Holy Spirit 
in applying the blood of Jesus that cleanses from all 
sin. I have heard and seen many attempted exposi- 
tions of Jesus' s words to Nicodemus: "Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God;" but that he meant except 
a man get the first and second blessing — regeneration 
and sanctification — is certainly the latest, if not the 
best! If this is Wesleyan Methodism, I confess that 



" SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CARRADINE, D.D." 161 

I have not so learned it. However it may be with 
others, I am free to confess that it w T ill take some- 
thing more than the bare assertion of Dr. Carradine 
to convince me that "the Saviour recognized and al- 
luded to the two blessings or works in his words to 
Nicodemus," in John iii. 5. 

"Fifth. The second blessing, or sanctifi cation, is 
seen in the two washings mentioned in the Old Tes- 
tament. The first is in Isaiah i. 18: 'Come . . . 
though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white 
as snow.' Here is regeneration." The second, he 
tells us, is in Psalm li. 7: " ' Wash me, and I shall be 
whiter than snow.' Here is sanctification." He says: 
"The first baptism makes you 'white as snow;' the 
second baptism, or washing of fire, makes you c whiter 
than snow.' " The first, of course, is water baptism; 
for he says: "It is seen in the two baptisms of the 
Bible: the one of water and the other of fire and the 
Holy Ghost." Any theory of a doctrine to maintain 
which it is necessary to contradict oneself and per- 
vert the Scriptures must be false. The distinguish- 
ing feature of Christ's coming was that he should 
baptize " with fire and the Holy Ghost." This " distin- 
guishing feature " is " the second blessing, or sancti- 
fication." And yet "Isaiah was inviting to recogni- 
tion; David was praying for sanctification." David 
ought to have known better, especially as he is pre- 
sumed to have prayed and written under the inspira- 
tion of the Holy Spirit. He was premature. Not 
only so; but he was mistaken as to the nature of 
the blessings he was praying for. He thought it 
w r as deliverance from the guilt and depravity of his 
own personal sins that he needed, and hence he said: 
11 



162 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

" Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and 
cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my 
transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against 
thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in 
thy sight." It is true he says, " Behold, I was shapen 
in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me; " 
but he only prays for deliverance from his own sins: 
' 'Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine in- 
iquities." "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, 
thou God of my salvation : and my tongue shall sing 
aloud of thy righteousness." This does not look or 
sound like the prayer of one who has " peace with 
"God through conscious forgiveness of all his per- 
sonal sins, and was only seeking deliverance from 
" original sin " or entailed depravity. 

I wonder that the brother did not find the "two 
washings " in the seventh verse of this Psalm, without 
having to go to Isaiah for one. " Purge me with hys- 
sop, and I shall be clean," might be made to mean 
regeneration; and "wash me, and I shall be whiter 
than snow," to mean sanctification, or the second 
blessing. It might be seen, too, in the second verse: 
"Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquities, and 
cleanse me from my sin." The "wash" might be 
called regeneration, and the "cleanse" sanctification; 
the " iniquity " being personal and the " sin " inherit- 
ed. And the third verse might be read: "For I ac- 
knowledge my [personal] transgressions: and my 
[inherited] sin is ever before me!" To some this 
might have the appearance of trifling with the word 
of God; but it is as legitimate as anything presented 
by the Doctor in the chapter under consideration. 
He finds it "in the highway and w T ay " of Isaiah 



" SANCTIFICATION, BY RET. B. CARRADINE, D.D." 163 

xxxv. 8; "in the lives of the two sisters," Mary and 
Martha; "in the two parables of the hidden treasure 
and the purchased pearl of great price;" in the two 
anointings of the leper; " and " in the crossings made 
by the children of Israel — one over the Red 8ea 5 and 
the other over the river Jordan." A pretty fair 
specimen of the strain necessary to get the " second 
blessing" out of these scriptures is presented in the 
case of the leper, whose " cleansing was effected, not 
by one, but two anointings; " one with blood and the 
other with oil. " The oil was put upon the blood, not 
instantaneously, but afterward." Here it is plainly 
taught (though, I presume, not intended) that the 
blood of Jesus Christ does not cleanse from all sin! 
"It is always the oil on the blood. That is the sec- 
ond blessing! " That is, after the blood has been ap- 
plied and has done all that it can do, there must be 
an application of oil (the Holy Ghost) in order to 
perfect cleansing! I have always thought that the 
Holy Spirit is the agent, and not the mere instru- 
ment of cleansing; that it is He who applies the 
blood and by it cleanses from all sin. But we are 
moving, if not progressing. 
Now let us turn to 

"TVhere It Is Specially Taught in the Bible." 

And note a few examples there. It would be an 
easy matter to show that no passage quoted under 
this head has any reference to sanctification as a 
special second blessing, but it would require a long 
chapter to do so. I shall therefore notice only a few. 
Matthew i. 21: "And she shall bring forth a son, and 
thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his 



1C4 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

people from their sins." The reader will notice that 
Christ here promised to save his people from their 
sins, not sinners! " His people" are "not sinners," 
and yet they are to be saved from their sins! "His 
people" are regenerated, and regeneration is the 
cleansing away of personal sins," etc. (See p. 26.) 
" Their sins " must have been personal. Sanctifica- 
tion, according to the Doctor, takes away "original 
sin;" and the text he quotes to prove it says, "He 
shall save his people from their sins," and not a word 
about "original sin." His interpretation leaves 
" sinners " — the only persons who need salvation — 
without a Saviour! Whereas the apostle Paul says: 
" Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 

Take another example: Ephesians v. 26: "That he 
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of 
water by the word." The apostle is speaking of the 
Church, he tells us, and, referring the reader to the 
"Revised Version," which reads, "That he might 
sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water 
with the word," he adds: "Here is sanctification 
promised to those cleansed by regeneration." Then 
sanctification is not a cleansing, but only something 
to be done "to those cleansed by regeneration!" 
Purity is the result of cleansing. That which is 
pure has been cleansed, if it was ever impure. On 
page 32 sanctification is defined to be " an experience 
of purity as clearly distinct from the experience of 
pardon as one individual life is different from an- 
other." "The experience of pardon," I take it, is 
the same thing as regeneration, that by which we are 
"cleansed." Then sanctification is "an experience 
of purity as clearly distinct from the experience of" 



" SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CARRADINE, D.D." 165 

being "cleansed" " as one individual life is different 
from another! " 

Let one more suffice. Hebrew ix. 28: "So Christ 
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto 
them that look for him shall he appear the second 
time without sin unto salvation." The argument (?) 
is based on the clause "unto them that look for him! " 
"We are asked, " Will we not appear to all on that 
day ? " the day of judgment. To which it is sufficient 
to reply: Certainly; but not to all "unto salvation," 
but only to " them that look for him." 

In another chapter, p. 97, we have this (John viii. 
36) : " ' If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free 
indeed.' This was a promise made not to sinners, 
but to Christians." This in support of sanctification 
as a "second blessing." Now let the reader turn to 
the passage and read the context, especially the next 
two verses: "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; 
but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no 
place in you. I speak that which I have seen with 
my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with 
your Father." In the forty-fourth verse he explains 
who their Father is: "Ye are of your father the 
devil." And yet we are told that "this was a promise 
made not to sinners, but to Christians! " Who then, 
I ask, are sinners, if the children of the devil are 
not? 

It would be matter of wonder that anybody should 
so pervert the plain and unmistakable teaching of 
God's word; but that a Christian minister and 
scholar, with the plain letter of the word before his 
eyes, should, in support of a theory based upon an 
experience of closer and more intimate acquaintance 



166 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. 

with the Saviour than the common herd of his breth- 
ren, contradict the plain word of his Master is more 
than wonderful. It is absolutely unaccountable. 

I do not believe that Dr. Carradine would purpose- 
ly or knowingly misapply and pervert the Scriptures; 
but certainly one who, assuming to expound and 
teach the word of truth, will quote and explain a 
sentence without any reference to its connection, 
cannot be considered a safe leader in matters of faith 
touching the oracles of God. And no theory the 
support of which requires such treatment of these 
oracles can be true. 

Sanctification is a Bible doctrine, and " without 
holiness no man can see the Lord; " but the " second 
blessing " theory, as taught by Dr. Carradine and 
others, is not supported by a single passage of 
Scripture, but is contradictory of the foundation 
facts and principles of Christianity and of the gen- 
eral tenor of Bible teaching. Better take the expe- 
rience, and let the theory alone. 



CHAPTEE XIV. 

Conclusion. 

Christian perfection is not a monotonous experi- 
ence of joy and ceaseless shouting which, beginning 
with an instantaneous and conscious deliverance from 
original sin (inherited depravity), flows on in unva- 
rying strains of hallelujahs and praise-the-Lords; nor 
is it a state of grace in which the limit of possible 
growth is reached, and beyond which there is nothing 
attainable in this life. It is rather the confirmation 
of that faith which, working by love, purifies the heart 
for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and of the 
habit of holy living which was proposed when self 
was sanctified to the service of God— consecrated, set 
apart to and for his use and service. In other words, 
it is the confirmed habit of faith and holiness — of 
holy living — which has been established, by the help 
of God, through perseverance in prayer and watch- 
fulness against sin, in which the perfect love that 
casteth out all fear is an abiding guest, not simply an 
occasional visitor. 

" Entire sanctification," in the Bible sense of the 
word " sanctify " is necessary to the beginning of that 
growth through which Christian perfection is reached. 
It is only by practice that perfection can be attained 
to in anything that is done by voluntary action. 
That which is passive in its fashioning may be wade 
perfect and, if the maker is competent to the task, 

(167) 



168 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

may be perfected in a moment — instantaneously; but 
development, in anything, when accomplished by the 
action of finite beings, or when dependent upon their 
cooperation for accomplishment, is necessarily the 
work of growth and requires time. 

In creation, it is presumable, God made all things 
that were to be perpetuated by succession through 
generation perfect as to size, as well as in their nature; 
but ordained that afterward that perfection should 
be reached by growth. It is hardly supposable that, 
in creating the birds, he first made the eggs, and then 
put them through the process of incubation to pro- 
duce the birds; that, in creating trees, he first made 
the seed — the acorn, for instance — and then produced 
the oak by the slow process of germination and 
growth. We do not presume that Adam was made a 
babe and that he reached mature manhood by growth, 
from infancy through the different stages of child- 
hood, youth, and young manhood, as all his children 
have done and do; nor that Eve was given to him a 
wee, tiny babe to be nursed, nourished, and devel- 
oped into mature womanhood in order to become a 
suitable companion and helpmate for him. But we 
know that now, and ever since God rested from the 
work of creation (as to this world), he perfects his 
work in these things, as to size — maturity — by means 
of growth. 

Christian perfection is no exception to this rule. 
Even Jesus, the Christ, though the " Second Adam," 
in assuming human nature that he might redeem it, 
was not made a man at once, as was the first Adam, 
but was born a babe in Bethlehem and reached man- 
hood by growth and development, as do all the de- 



CONCLUSION. 169 

scendants of the original Adam. He " increased in 
wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." 
As "the Captain of" our " salvation" he was made 
"perfect through suffering;" not instantaneously, 
but by patient endurance unto the end. And we are 
made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of 
our confidence steadfast unto the end." 

Christianity is preeminently a practical thing, and 
to be a Christian is to practice the precepts of Christ 
and imitate the example he set in holy living. To do 
this requires unceasing activity, and the daily repeti- 
tion of holy and righteous deeds, both on the negative 
and positive sides: "For the grace of God that 
bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching 
us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we 
should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this 
present world: looking for that blessed hope, and 
the glorious appearing of the great God and our 
Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that 
he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify 
unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good 
works." It is by this practice of self-denial and of 
active engagement in positive duty— holy living — 
that perfection in Christian character is to be reached 
and established. This is the only possible way to 
"grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ;" and that any can do so 
who are " full of sin and deserving punishment " is 
simply absurd. 

The one thing emphasized throughout the Bible to 
and for those who are " justified by faith " is practical 
godliness — perseverance in holy living; and this in 

view of the second coming of our Lord Jesus that we 
11* 



170 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

may "be found of him in peace, without spot, and 
blameless." " Being justified by faith, we have peace 
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; " and if we 
do not sin again, that peace will abide with us to the 
end. For, in the divine "purpose," " whom he justi- 
fied, them he also glorified." Glorification follows 
justification as certainly as that justification is not 
forfeited by sin and condemnation reincurred. Jus- 
tification, as applied to one who has personally sinned 
and brought condemnation upon himself, is readjust- 
ment into right relationship to God and the rule of 
right — the law of God; and the justified man is re- 
quired and expected to move thenceforth on the plain 
of exact correspondence w T ith that law — the law of 
love — until he reach the "glory which shall be re- 
vealed in us," "if so be that we suffer with him, that 
we may be also glorified together." 

God desires and designs that man shall be glorified 
through and with his Son, and has ordained means to 
this end. Our "peace with God" is "through our 
Lord Jesus Christ" because through him "we have 
had our access by faith into this grace [of justifica- 
tion] wherein we stand; " now "let us rejoice in hope 
of the glory of God (see R. V.), and forgetting those 
things which, are behind, and reaching forth unto 
those things which are before," let us "press toward 
the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in 
Christ Jesus." 

Peter, writing to the "elect according to the fore- 
knowledge of God the Father, through sanctification 
of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ," says: "Grace unto you, and 
peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father 



CONCLUSION. 171 

of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his 
abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively 
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the 
dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, 
and that f adeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 
who are kept by the power of God through faith unto 
salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 
Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, 
if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold 
temptations: that the trial of your faith, being much 
more precious than of gold that perishetb, though it 
be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and 
honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 
whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though 
now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy 
unspeakable and full of glory : receiving the end of 
your faith, even the salvation of your souls." 

Can any one believe that these elect persons, with 
"a lively hope" looking to the heavenly inherit- 
ance, even the " salvation ready to be revealed in the 
last time;" whose faith enables them to rejoice even 
while "in heaviness through manifold temptations;" 
who, loving him whom they have not seen, "yet be- 
lieving rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of 
glory;" whose election was through sanctifi cation 
of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ," were yet ^^sanctified? 
Were they still "full of sin, and deserving punish- 
ment?" Surely not. And yet the apostle says to 
them: "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, 
be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to 
be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ: 
as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves ac~ 



172 THE PKORLEM SOLVED. 

cording to the former lusts in your ignorance: but 
as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in 
all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be 
ye holy; for I am holy." Here was a good place for 
the apostle Peter to emphasize the need of a " second 
blessing" and exhort the "elect" brethren to seek it, 
if he believed, as do our modern theorists, that it is 
necessary to a holy life and to fitness for heaven. 
But, instead of that, he simply exhorts them to be 
holy, not to seek holiness as an instantaneous gift 
from God. 

He recognizes the fact that, if they would main- 
tain their place among the "elect," and perpetuate 
in themselves the "joy unspeakable and full of 
glory," which began when they received "the end of 
their faith, even the salvation of their souls," they 
must "walk by faith" "as obedient children," must 
be " holy in all manner of conversation " — that is, be 
holy in their lives. That this is what he means, and 
not that they were to seek purification by means of 
" sanctification " as a " second blessing," is made 
clear by the twenty-second verse: "Seeing ye have 
purified your souls in obeying the truth through the 
Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethern, see that 
ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." 
" Love is the fulfilling of the law," but only when it 
finds expression in shaping the life in accordance 
with the law, both in its negative and positive re- 
quirements. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: 
therefore love is the fullfilling of the law." He who 
practically recognizes the debt of love will "owe no 
man anything" else, if he can possibly avoid it. 
Love pays his debts, and so fulfills the law. 



CONCLUSION. 173 

"Out of the heart are the issues of life." A cor- 
rupt fountain cannot send forth a pure stream. See- 
ing that the heart (soul), the fountain, has been 
purified by the Spirit in your acceptance of the truth, 
see that from that pure heart you send out, in holy 
acts, a stream of love that shall meet each others' 
wants in a practical and helpful way, and so "be ye 
holy." 

Still speaking to these " elect " brethren, who were 
such "through sanctification of the Spirit," he says: 
" Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and 
hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as 
newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, 
that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted 
that the Lord is gracious." How different this from 
the exhortations of our modern "second blessing" 
theorists. They would exhort such to seek sanctifica- 
tion, as a special second blessing, as a preparation 
for growth in grace, and yet contend that this second 
blessing is Christian perfection! The logical out- 
come of this theory is that Christian perfection must 
be sought and obtained, as an instantaneous gift from 
God, before one can begin to "grow in grace" and 
to "go on to perfection!" Whereas Peter tells them 
that, " as lively stones," they " are built up a spiritual 
house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacri- 
fices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ," and ex- 
horts them to " abstain from fleshly lusts, which war 
against the soul;" but says not a word about their 
seeking the " second blessing." 

In his Second Epistle he calls himself " a servant 
and an apostle of Jesus Christ," and writes "to them 
that have obtained like precious faith with us through 



174 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus 
Christ." Either Peter had not "obtained" the faith 
of the "second blessing" or this Epistle is addressed 
to them who had obtained it; for he says it is "to 
them that have obtained like precious faith with" 
himself and others. If he had not, then the pente- 
costal baptism was not distinctively and distinguish- 
ingly a "second blessing," sent only upon the chil-* 
dren of God in order to perfect them in holiness, and 
which was and is necessary to every one who has been 
(and is) "born of the Spirit," in order to his cleans- 
ing " from all unrighteousness." If he had, and they 
to whom he wrote had "obtained like precious 
faith," then the "second blessing," or "entire sancti- 
fication," is not Christian perfection, but only the 
foundation on which it is built — the beginning of 
that state, or relation, in which perfection is to be at- 
tained unto or accomplished by growth or addition. 
For he says: "And besides this, giving all diligence, 
add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; 
and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, 
patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godli- 
ness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, 
charity." Now if these had received the "second 
blessing," "entire sanctification," then it follows that 
they who have received only the " second blessing " 
are without virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, 
godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity, and have 
only justifying faith; for to their faith all the others 
were to be added. 

This diligence in adding is to be given by those 
who have "escaped the corruption that is in the world 
through lust," in order that they shall "neither be 



CONCLUSION. 175 

barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord 
Jesus Christ," but that they "might be partakers of 
the divine nature; " " for so an entrance shall be min- 
istered unto you abundantly into the everlasting 
kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 
Paul says: "For we are made partakers of Christ, 
if we hold the beginning of our confidence stead- 
fast unto the end." (Heb. iii. 14.) And Peter 
seems to present the same idea — viz., that "having 
escaped the corruption that is in the world through 
lust," there " are given unto us exceeding great and 
precious promises; that by these ye might be par- 
takers of the divine nature," provided ye "give dil- 
igence to make your calling and election sure: for 
if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." "But 
he that lacketh these things [fails to be diligent and 
add] is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath for- 
gotten that he was purged from his old sins," and 
needs to seek a "second blessing," a second cleans- 
ing, because of his second sinning. "For if after 
they have escaped the pollutions of the world through 
the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the 
latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 
For it had been better for them not to have known 
the way of righteousness, than, after they have known 
it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto 
them. But it is happened unto them according to 
the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit 
again; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing 
in the mire." 

"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know T these 
things before, beware lest ye also, being led away 



176 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

with the error of the wicked, fall from your own 
steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowl- 
edge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him 
be glory now and forever. Amen." 

St. Paul's idea that justification, if not forfeited 
by personal sin, ultimates in glorification, and that 
without any intervening and special "second bless- 
ing," runs through the whole of the New Testament,' 
as also the Old Testament. But to maintain this re- 
lation it is necessary to "grow in grace," to "go on 
to perfection." It is either go on or go back. If we 
do not grow, we dwarf and die. There is no stopping 
place this side the final inheritance, the perfection 
which we will "attain unto [in] the resurrection of 
the dead." This is the end had in view by the 
apostle when he says: " Let us go on unto perfection." 
(Heb. vi. 1.) Hence he says (verses 11, 12): "And 
we desire that every one of you do show the same 
diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end; 
that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who 
through faith and patience inherit the promises." 

It*is thought by some that John teaches the " sec- 
ond blessing" theory when he says: "If we confess 
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, 
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." ( 1 John 
i. 9.) But a little thoughtful attention will suffice to 
show that no such idea was in his mind. All that is 
in the text — pardon and cleansing — is conditioned on 
confessing u our sins," not Adam's; and there is no 
intimation that, after "our sins" are forgiven, there 
is to be another confession (of original sin) and seek- 
ing for cleansing. "All unrighteousness is sin," saith 
John. And he further says: "We know that who- 



CONCLUSION. 177 

soever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is be- 
gotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one 
toucheth him not." (1 John v. 17, 18.) He, then 
who is born of God is cleansed " from all unright- 
eousness," and needs only to heed the injunction of 
Jude, when he says: "But ye, beloved, building up 
yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the 
Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, 
looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto 
eternal life." 

Whoever will read the whole Epistle of John, con- 
nectedly and with close attention, will, I dare say, find 
that the idea of the "second blessing" had never 
entered his mind. Like Paul and Peter, he teaches 
that childship and the final inheritance are insepara- 
ble; that a child of God has only to continue in that 
relation to the end of his probation in order to enter 
upon the final inheritance and be crowned with eter- 
nal life. 

He writes to "fathers," "young men," and "little 
children;" and whether he be understood to apply 
these terms literally, to old men, young men, and 
children; or spiritually, as expressive of different 
stages of development in the spiritual life, there is 
no intimation of an "instantaneous" change from 
one to another. The "little children" are not ex- 
horted to seek, by means of a "second blessing," to 
become "young men" in an instant; nor the "young 
men," by the same means and instantaneously, to be- 
come "fathers." It would require not only the 
"second" but the third "blessing" to accomplish 
both. 

If the "little children" are not taught the need of 



178 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED: 

a " second blessing," of course the "young men " and 
''fathers" are not; and to them he says: "And now, 
little children, abide in him; that, when he shall ap- 
pear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed 
before him at his coming." To them all he says: 
"Behold what manner of love the Father hath be- 
stowed upon us, that w T e should be called the sons of 
God"— "us," and "we," whether "little children," 
"young men," or "fathers." "Beloved, now are we 
the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we 
shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, 
we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 
It cannot be doubted that this applies to all who are 
children of God, and not simply to a favored few who 
have sought and obtained something higher and bet- 
ter than childship, in a special " second blessing." 
Every child of God hopes to see and be like his Sav- 
iour "when he shall appear." "And every man that 
hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is 
pare." 

It is not said that "every man that hath this hope 
in him" may, if he will seek it as a special "second 
blessing," be made pure, but that he "purifieth him- 
self n — does it now and continuously. For " whosoever 
committeth sin transgresseth also the law [though he 
may have been before pardoned]: for sin is the 
transgression of the law." And "whosoever abideth 
in him sinneth not," does not transgress the law, 
either in its positive or negative requirements — that 
is, he neither does forbidden things nor refuses to do 
what is required. " Little children, let no man de- 
ceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, 
even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is 



CONCLUSION. 179 

[a child] of the devil." "Whosoever is born of God 
doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: 
and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In 
this the children of God are manifest, and the chil- 
dren of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness 
is not [a child] of God, neither he that loveth not his 
brother." 

Every child of God is an heir of God, and a joint heir 
with Christ; and the only difference between the chil- 
dren of God and the children of the devil is that one sins 
and the other does not. If any who are now the children 
of God have been children of the devil, it is because 
they personally sinned and apostatized from the divine 
favor; and they are now the children of God because 
they confessed their sins and were forgiven and 
cleansed "from all unrighteousness." As saith the 
apostle Paul: "And such were some of you: but ye 
are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified 
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of 
our God." (1 Cor. vi. 11.) Here washed and sancti- 
fied are predicated of those who have only been 
"justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the 
Spirit of our God." This is the cleansing which is 
wrought by the Holy Spirit, through the blood of 
Jesus Christ, in the heart of every penitent, when he 
is pardoned and "begotten again unto a lively hope 
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 
And "every man that hath [not has had] this hope 
in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" — that 
is, he "visits the fatherless and the widows in their 
afflictions and keeps himself unspotted from the 
world." For this is u fiire religion and undefiled be- 
fore God and the Father," in its outgiving to the world. 



180 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

" Out of the heart are the issues of life ; " and if, when 
one's heart is purified " by faith," he does not purify 
himself in his practical, everyday life, he will soon 
corrupt the fountain again, and destroy the hope of 
seeing him as he is" and being " like him." So that 
it is philosophically, as well as scripturally, true that 
"every man that hath [that is, retains] this hope in 
him purifieth himself, even as he is pure;" for, as 
nothing impure can enter heaven, when he defiles the 
heart he destroys the hope. 

There is not the slightest intimation in the Epistles 
of John that a " second blessing" is necessary to 
purify the heart or life of a child of God; but per- 
severance in faith and holy living are necessary to the 
retention of that purity which is wrought " by the 
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost: which he shed on us abundantly through 
Jesus Christ our Saviour," when, "according to his 
mercy he saved us;" "that being justified by his 
grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope 
of eternal life." For we then a received the Spirit of 
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father;" since 
when "the Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirit, that we are the children of God. And if 
children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs 
with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we 
may be also glorified together." To be "joint heirs 
with Christ" is to heir all things; for "God, who at 
sundry times and in divers manners spake in times 
past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these 
last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath 
appointed heir of all things" This Son is the 
"Christ Jesus" who "came into the world to save 



CONCLUSION. 181 

sinners," and "who was made a little lower than the 
angels for the suffering of death, [and] crowned with 
glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should 
taste death for every man. For it became him, for 
whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in 
bringing many souls unto glory, to make the captain 
of their salvation perfect through s ufferings . . . For 
in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is 
able to succor them that are tempted." Temptation, 
then, was a part of the suffering endured by the Cap- 
tain of our salvation in order that he might bring us 
to glory, and that he might be made perfect to this 
end; and we "joint heirs with him; if so be that we 
suffer with him [he is with us to succor us, and to 
suffer with us, in our temptations], that we may be 
also glorified together" with him. We should there- 
fore " count it all joy when we fall into divers temp- 
tations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith 
worketh patience. But [we should] let patience have 
her perfect work, that we may be perfect and entire, 
wanting nothing." 

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for 
when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, 
which the Lord hath promised to them that love 
him." Therefore, "Take heed, brethren, lest there 
be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in depart- 
ing from the living God. But exhort one another 
daily, while it is called to-day; lest any of you be 
hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we 
are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the begin- 
ning of our confidence steadfast unto the end! 7 

Every child of God is exhorted, throughout the 
Bible, to persevere to the end of his natural, physical 



182 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. 

life, as a condition necessary to receiving the crown 
which is at the end of the race; but not once is he 
exhorted to seek a "second blessing," as a necessary 
preparation for wearing the crown — nor at all, as 
such. " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give 
thee a crown of life,'"' though written to the Church 
at Smyrna, is appropriate to and may be appropriated 
by every child of God, and to the end of the world. 

In cod elusion: Let it not be said that this writer is 
opposed to holiness, nor that he has written a word 
against entire sanctification. He believes in and has 
written in the interest of both; and if he has erred 
in any position he has taken with regard to either, no 
one will be gladder than he to have that error pointed 
out and corrected. He believes, and has taught in 
foregoing pages, that a first and second blessing are 
necessary to the complete recovery of every sinner 
from sin and its consequences — including in the 
meaning of the word sin both "original sin" and 
personal transgressions of the law. 

He believes and has taught that the first blessing, 
including justification and regeneration, removes the 
guilt and the defilement of man's personal sins, and 
that he ought thenceforward "keep himself unspot- 
ted from the world;" and that the second will re- 
cover him perfectly from "original sin," or entailed 
depravity. But he does not believe that this second 
blessing is attained or attainable in this life; but 
that it will be accomplished in the resurrection of the 
body at the last day. 

To the hope of this second blessing we are "be- 
gotten again" "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
from the dead," when we, "who were dead in tres- 



CONCLUSION. 183 

passes and sins," are "quickened together with him," 
lie " having forgiven all our trespasses." Whether it 
be called regeneration, a quickening (resurrection), 
adoption or the new birth ( " born again " ), the change 
implied in the use of these terms is applicable to both 
spirit and body, as is evidenced by their use in the 
Scriptures. To the spirit this change comes, if at 
all, in this life, and is the first blessing. . To the body 
it will come when, and only when, this mortal shall 
put on immortality; and then, as an adoption, only to 
them which sleep in Jesus" and them who shall be 
" alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." 
This is the second blessing, in which the hope to 
which they are begotten in the first will be consum- 
mated and "the creature itself [the body] also shall 
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God." 

"With this scriptural view of the " second bless- 
ing," we can adopt the sentiment and language of the 
Psalmist, when he says: "As for me, I will behold thy 
face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I 
awake, with thy likeness." 

Let no one, however, deceive himself with the idea 
that in regeneration or adoption he has received and 
attained to all that is attainable in this life. He can 
attain to no higher relation, it is true; but there are 
heights and depths unmeasurable, attainable in the 
experiences of the children of God, to which every 
one is exhorted to go on, and this in order that he 
may retain the relation and, by the all-sufficient grace 
of God, vanquish every foe, come into closer fellow- 
ship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, 
attain to greater fullness cf his love, and in the end 



184 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. 

come off more than conqueror and wear forever in 
the sunbright clime the crown of life which the Lord 
will give to the " faithful unto death!" 

And now, dear reader, " the God of peace, that 
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that 
great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of 
the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every 
good work to do his will, working in you that which 
is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; 
to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." 

'"For this cause [to this end] I bow my knees 
unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom 
the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 
that he would grant you, according to the riches of 
his glory, to be strengthened with might by his 
Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in 
your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and 
grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with 
all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, 
and height; and to know the love of Christ, which 
passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all 
the fullness of God. Now unto him that is able to 
do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or 
think, according to the power that worketh in us, 
unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus 
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." 



THE PROBLEM SOLVED; 



OR, 



THE SECOND MM AND HIS WORK: 



Being a Review of the " Second Blessing » Theory 
of Sanctification, and of Its Reviewers. 



BY G. H. MAYES, D.D., 

Author of u Children in Christ." 



" Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (St. Paul.) 



Nashville, Tenn. : 

Publishing House of the M. E. Church, South. 

Barbee & Smith, Agents. 

1892. 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



_ 



